Return this book on or before the Latest Date stamped below. University of Illinois Library Mk 0? Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 https://archive.org/details/proceedingsnov301906chic 3 5a..6 / r7"?i 0 4 tHo"T. 0 Ca - , ncV\ l v*o'7 November 30 43 1906 PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Regular Meeting, Friday, November 30, 1906 2 O’clock P. M., in the OFFICIAL RECORD Published by authority of the Chicago Charter Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: The Convention will come to order and the Secretary- will call the roll. Present — Foreman, Chairman, and ^Badenoch, Baker, Beebe, Beilfuss, Ben- nett, Brown, Burke, Clettenberg, Cole, Crilly, Dever, Dixon, G. W.,Eckhart, B. A., ► Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, EricksQjj, Fisher, GJansbergen, Guerin, Haas, Hilly Hoyne, Jone^ Kittlemam Lathrop, Line- . han, LuncTberg, 'MacMillan, McCormick, McKinley, Merriam, O’Donnell, Owens, Pendarvis, Post, Power s, Raym er, Re- vcll, Robins, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Smulski, Snow^Stniny, Swift, Thompson, Vopicka, Werno, White, Wil- kins, Young, Zimmer — 55. Absent — Brosseau, Carey, Church/ Cruice, Dixon, T. J., Fitzpat rick, Gra- ham, Harrison, Hunter, McGoorty, Oehne, Paullin, Patterson, K&lTfey, Rinaker, Sethness, Taylor, Walker, Wilson — 19. City Council Chamber THE CHAIRMAN: Quorum present. The first business w-ill be the reading of the minutes of the last meeting of the Convention. The chair will entertain a motion to dispense with the reading of the minutes, inasmuch as they have been printed and distributed. MR. REVELL: I move that the reading be dispensed with. THE CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and seconded that the reading of the minutes of the last meeting be dispensed with. The motion prevailed. THE CHAIRMAN: The next busi- ness to come before the Convention is an amendment to the rules presented by Mr. Shepard at the last meeting of the Convention. It was deferred until this meeting. Will the Secretary please read the amendment? THE SECRETARY read: Proposed amendment to the rules, page 34, lower right-hand corner: Amend rules of Chicago Charter Con- vention, on page 19, in printed book of rules, by striking out of lines one and two tbe_ following: “Appropriate 1 - November 30 44 1906 Standing Committee’ ’ and insert in lieu thereof the words: “ Committee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan.” Also amend the rules of the Chicago Charter Convention in printed book of rules by inserting at the end of the first paragraph on page 19, after the word “determine,” the following: “Said Committee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan shall have authority to employ such assistants and experts as it may find necessary.” So that said paragraph, commencing on page 18. and ending at the top of page 19 of printed book of rules, shall read: “When the various standing com- mittees shall have made a preliminary investigation of and a preliminary re- port to the Convention upon the re- spective subjects submitted to them such reports shall be referred to the Committee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan without debate. Such committee shall submit to the Conven- tion for its consideration such a resolu- tion or series of resolutions as may be adapted to secure, so far as possible, an informal expression of opinion and a preliminary agreement in principle up- on the chief general outlines of the pro- posed charter. When such preliminary action shall have been taken by the Convention the subject matter shall be re-referred to the Committee on Rules Procedure and General Plan, which, thereupon, shall take up the discussion of details and proceed with the drafting of the precise terms of the different charter provisions and report the same to the Convention for such action as it may determine. Said Committee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan shall have authority to employ such assist ants and experts as it may find neces- sary. ’ * MR. SHEPARD: This resolution is now before the house. I move the adoption of the amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion. Are there any remarks ? MR. POST: I should like to hear an explanation by the mover of just what change he contemplates will be affected by that amendment. THE CHAIRMAN : What change is contemplated? MR. POST: I would like to have the mover of the resolution explain to the Convention what change it is expected will be affected in the proceedings of this body if this amendment is adopted. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: The rules of the Conven tion now provide that: “When such preliminary action shall have been taken by the Convention the subject matter shall be re-referred to the ap- propriate standing committee, which, thereupon, shall take up the discussion of details and proceed with the draft- ing of the precise terms of the different charter provisions, and report the same to the Convention for such action as it may determine.” The amendment changes that to read “shall be re- referred to the Committee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan, which, thereupon, shall take up the discussion of details,” and then it proceeds, as in the former, “and proceed with the drafting of the precise terms of the different charter provisions, and report the same to the Convention for such action as it may determine.” In a word, after the Convention has adopted one or more propositions now before the Convention, instead of those propo sitions being re-referred to the several standing committees of the Convention for drafting of the precise terms of the bill, they shall be re-referred to the sin- gle committee on general plan for that purpose, and then reported again to this Convention for discussion and adoption, if desired; the idea being that that single committee, possibly through a sub-committee, can better adopt pre- November 30 45 1906 cise terms for a bill necessary to carry into effect the resolutions adopted by this Convention with less inconvenience and less loss of time than a number of committees can do it, because the sev- eral committees of this Convention re- main as a part of the Convention dur- ing its contemplated continuous ses sion. No additional authority is vested in this Committee on General Plan and Procedure by this resolution. No au- thority or discretion is taken from the individual committee by it. The only thing the Committee on General Plan is to do is to reduce to precise terms the resolutions recommended and adopt- ed by the Convention and report them back to the Convention. MR. POST: I understand, Mr. Chair- man, that the sole effect of this amend- ment will be to substitute the general Committee on Rules, Procedure and Gen- eral Plan for the various committees of the Convention, for the purpose of put- ting into final form for submission to this Convention the propositions which the Convention may agree to adopt. THE CHAIRMAN: So I understand. MR. POST: Being a member of that committee, I have no objection to the proposed amendment. MR. LINEHAN: I would like to know what effect Mr. Rosenthal’s amendment will have on this. Shouldn’t we vote on that first? THE CHAIRMAN: Will the Secre- tary read Mr. Rosenthal’s amendment, please? I don’t understand that Mr Rosenthal reduced that to writing. If he did, it doesn’t appear in the min utes. THE SECRETARY read: I suggest that this be added after the words ** Committee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan,” — which, together with the assistance of a sub-committee of three to be appointed by the appro priate standing committee — and con tinue, shall thereupon take up the dis- cussion of details and proceed with the drafting, etc., and report the same to the Convention for such action as it may determine. THE CHAIRMAN: I don’t remem- ber that this amendment was reduced to writing. The matter is before the Convention now. The first motion will be upon Mr. Shepard’s motion to adopt his amendment, and then I suggest that the other amendment be offered. All those in favor of Mr. Shepard’s motion signify by saying Aye. THE CHAIRMAN: The rules are so amended. Now, Mr. Rosenthal’s sug- gestion is before the committee. MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman: Mr. Rosenthal ’s amendment, as I understand it, was suggested by him in the course of a debate, and it seems to me that if it is to be adopted it should be made a little more definite and specific than the language it is in now, because in the way it is now stated it would mean that each of the standing committees would add a committee of three mem- bers to the Committee on Rules, Pro- cedure and General Plan, which would make that committee very large in- deed. I think that committee is nov 21, or something like that. THE CHAIRMAN : It would make a committee of 68. MR. FISHER: Yes, if three men to be appointed by each committee were different men in each case. It seems to me that ought to be simplified beforr we are asked to vote upon it. MR. LINEHAN: When Mr. Rosen- thal’s amendment was offered, it was for the purpose of preserving the ideas which might originate with each stand- ing committee when they go to the steering committee. It is well known that different ideas have been brought out in the different committees, and the intention was to preserve some rights in the standing committees, so that, if necessary, the Committee on General Plan could consult with these represent- atives of the standing committees re- November 30 46 1906 garding any ideas that they wanted to bring forward. The intention was not to add three members from each standing committee; the intention was to preserve the standing committees in such a manner that the Committee or Rules, Procedure and General Plan could consult with the members of the standing committee with regard to any ideas which they or the people want to bring before them. It was principally in order to bring in any ideas which the people want to bring into this Conven- tion and have voted on, and not leave it to the Committee on General Plan to do as they please and smother any idea they wish to before it comes to the Convention. MR. RAYMER: I see Mr. Rosenthal is here, and it seems to me that it would be perfectly proper for him to explain the purpose of his amendment. I think he is more competent to explain it. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, my idea is this: This Committee or Rules, Procedure and General Plan does not represent all of the committees of this Convention. There are some com- mittees that are not represented on this committee, this steering committee. My idea was that in drafting a charter provision on any particular subject mat- ter, this general Committee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan should have the assistance of a sub-committee of the particular committee that have had that subject under consideration. I did not contemplate any such results as that there should be sixty-eight members in the steeering committee at all. My idea was, for example, supposing that the subject matter which this Committee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan was considering was civil service. Sup- posing that were referred to this com- mittee; then this Committee on Rules would, with the assistance of three members from the Committee on Ap- pointments and Tenure of Office proceed to draft the charter provision relating to the subject of civil service. Mr. Shepard’s amendment was as follows: “When such preliminary action shall have been taken by the Convention, the subject matter shall be re-referred to the Committee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan, which, thereupon, shall take up the discussion of the de- tails,” and so forth. It doesn’t say that everything shall be re-referred; just that the subject matter of the par- ticular committee, and there the words: 11 together with the assistance of a sub- committee of three be appointed by the proper standing committee,” and then go on — shall take up the discus- sion of details, and so forth. My only purpose in having that in there was that this general committee shall have the benefit of the discussion that has taker place in the separate committees, be- cause there the details have been dis- cussed more or less. For instance, take the subject of civil service. In our par- ticular committee the precise terms of that provision have been discussed, and have really been adopted by a majority of the committee, so that if a commit- tee of three from our comittee were to consult with them, the Committee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan would have the benefit of all the sub- committee’s knowledge of that particu- lar subject. It seems to me individuallv that this is a wise provision. If the ma- jority of the members do not think so, I am willing to have it voted down. I am not pressing it. ATR. RE YELL: It seems to me that we should keep this Committee on Rules and General Plan as small as we pos- sibly can, and it strikes me that the way this amendment would work out is that unless the Committee on General Plan were able to determine in advance just what work it will do, in order to carry out the amendment, it would have to invite three members of every com mittee of this Convention to be present upon any given afternoon. Of course. November 30 47 1906 I can see how it would work out if the Committee on General Plan knew just what it was going to take up, — as the subject of civil service, then only three members of the committee which con sidered the subject of civil service would have to be invited, but if the Committee on General Plan did no know that this was the only work which it was going to do, it must as- sume just what was to come up, and if it cannot do that it must defer action until the forty or fifty other member: of the other committees could be repre- sented, who did not represent the sub- ject of civil service. I don’t think it would be wise for us to touch this Com- mittee on General Plan. ME. WHITE: I ask, for information, how many committees have no rep- resentation whatever on this Committee on General Plan? THE CHAIRMAN: I confess I have never checked it up. MR. WHITE: I would like to have that information, because it seems to me that every committee that has taken up the work assigned to it, and did the best that they could with it, and made a report, they should have someone in that general committee to defend, if need be, or to explain, if necessary, why that committee arrived at certain re- sults. If there are committees here who are not represented on the Committee on General Plan, I think we could do away with Mr. Linehan’s objection in some way by seeing that each commit- tee which is not represented should be represented in this general committee. I believe it is a perfectly fair propo- sition. I don’t know why the work of any committee should be turned ove~ to another committee that has no par ticular interest in it, and has no one to explain and defend the work of the committee. I believe that it will be an injustice to the committee to give them no representation, and I know it will facilitate the work of the Rules Procedure and General Plan Committee if it is found that every committee is represented there. It would simplify that proposition greatly. MR. ECKHART: I suggest that Mr. Rosenthal frame such a resolution or suggest such an amendment as he in- tends to present to the Convention, — which will outline his views. It is in- definite now. I don’t know if the mem- bers of this Convention understand it now. I didn’t at the time I asked for the information, and if Mr. Rosenthal will explain the meaning of the amend- ment, it will clear things up. MR. ROSENTHAL: I have it here. To make it clearer, — here is the amend- ment. THE CHAIRMAN: I find, upon checking the matter up, that every com- mittee is represented on the General Plan Comittee. MR. YOUNG: I think a wrong im- pression exists in this matter. The va- rious committees here have met to- gether from time to time, and have de- cided upon what they should recommend here, — what they would recommend should go into the charter. There are also a number of minority reports com- ing from these standing committees. Now the general committee have re- ferred back to the entire Convention all of the recommendations, — both those made by the majority and those made by the minority as is shown by the re- ports, so that the whole subject matte’ as to what shall go into the charter is now before the Convention, and the Con- vention itself here will determine what is to go into the charter, and the Com- mittee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan, as I understand it, will not gr further than to merely draft that int precise terms. They will not discuss any original matter, unless it comes to them from the Convention. They will simply do the routine work of drawing up in precise terms what has already been decided upon by this Conventio’ November 30 48 1906 and referred to them for that particula purpose. As a matter of fact, the twenty-four men of that committee will not do this work at all, but necessaril; they will delegate it to a sub-commit tee of their number, which will be com- posed of a few men, and they, with th assistance of an expert, will draw that into proper form, so I don’t see just what will be gained by having varior members of these different committees coming into consultation there, because there will be no discussion there at al The whole matter is now in the hand of the Convention to determine what i J wishes, and send it back to the steer- ing committee, which will draft it in precise terms. MR. McCORMICK: As I understand the situation, it is the duty of tfiir Committee on Procedure and General Plan to put the wishes of the Conven- tion into proper language. Now, is it the purpose in your amendment that three members of each standing commit tee shall assist the general committee in putting into proper language the wishes of the Convention on the partic- ular subject which their committee has been considering? MR. ROSENTHAL: That is exactly what I mean, and if I may be permitted to give an illustration: Take the pro vision with regard to the civil service which we discussed in the committee pretty fully, the wishes of the commit- tee on this matter will all depend upon the exact way in which this matter is drafted in the charter. Take the right of discharge without trial, — that was a matter which was discussed in our com mittee. Now, it is the idea to take tha J particular provision there and have it embodied in the charter, and it depr greatly upon the language which you use in order to carry out the desire of the committee. It is not a matter routine, as suggested by the las speaker. It is really one of the most important things that will come before this Convention. Two persons may agree upon how that should be settled but when it comes before the committe( for drafting it is very desirable to have a member of the committee present to see that the wishes are properly carried out in the draft. That is why I think on any such subject the general com- mittee ought to have the assistance of a sub-committee from the standing committee. It is not a matter regard- ing which I have any very strong feel- ings on, however. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the amendment as drafted by Mr. Rosenthal, which, it will be as- sumed, represents the spirit of the amendment offered at the last meeting, after which a motion will be in order. THE SECRETARY read: Provided, however, that each regular standing committee shall appoint a sub-commit- tee of three which shall act with the Committee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan in drafting the provisions relating to the particular subject mat- ter which has already been referred to such standing committee. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? You have heard the amendment offered by Mr. Rosenthal. MR. COLE : Mr. Chairman — Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cole. MR. COLE: I don’t blame you for not seeing me. I want to say that this strikes me and some of us sitting near me here that these standing committees are dead. They have practically done their work, and to bring them into life now is simply barking up a dead tree. They have had their meetings, and dis- cussion, and have reported to the Con- vention on the subjects allotted to them, and everything is now in the hands of the Convention. For that reason I shall vote No on that motion. MR. POST: It seems to me that Mr. Rosenthal’s reasons are good, but the very reasons which he offers also go to November 30 49 1906 support the policy of minority repre- sentation of the standing committees in these sub-committees where the com- mittees are ont unanimous, and, there- fore, I wish to substitute this amend- ment for the one which Mr. Eosenthal has offered: After the word 11 there- upon/ ’ at the bottom of page 35, in- sert 11 together with a sub-committee of three from the appropriate standing committee, one of which will represent the minority if the standing committee is divided upon the subject. ME. SHANAHAN: I am afraid that we are going back just one year. The committee work of this Convention, both that of the standing committees and the so-called 11 steering committee, ” is over. The committee during the spring and summer have held many meetings, and have made their reports, which are now submitted in a series of resolu- tions before the Convention embracing both the majority and the minority re- ports from those standing committees. These have been received by the Con- vention, and by it referred to the steer- ing committee, and, as I understand it, they have formulated a report, with the assistance of experts, and they are ready now to submit to this Convention a series of resolutions on both sides of the question, as adopted by the majori- ty and the minority. And as I see it, the whole matter is now before the Con- vention for their consideration. They can adopt any one of the resolutions on any of the subjects, and after it has been adopted, they will refer it back to the steering committee, and they will simply turn it over to experts to put it into proper language, and return it to the Convention for final action. Now, what is the use of talking about adding to these standing committees? The whole thing that you want is be- fore the Convention. Any new matter that you want can be brought up in an amendment from the floor, and I hope that we will proceed and get to work and not talk about this or that com- mittee. ME. FISHEE: Before that is put, I want to object to the amendment offered by Mr. Post, as being in the end the same thing that is offered by Mr. Eosen- thal, which, if it is adopted, will add three members from every standing committee to the Eules Committee. The stubstitute which has been offered sim- plifies it to this extent, at least: The proposition now is merely to have a sub' committee from each of the standing; committees assist the general plan com- mittee when the general plan eomit- tee is drafting the particular provisions relating to the matter which has been before that particular standing commit- tee. It is desirable to curtail it at least to that point, whatever we think of the other proposition. In other words, in considering the subject of civil serv- ice, we don’t want any more than the sub-committee from the standing com- mittee which has the matter in hand. If we had the others, it would mean the whole Convention. Now, it seems to me that all that the amendment of Mr. Post amounts to is simply that one of those members of the sub-committee shall represent the minority, if there if a minority. I think it ought to be con- fined to Mr. Eosenthal ’s proposition as he made it and * * * ME. EAYMEE: Mr. Shanahan has voiced my ideas exactly with reference to the necessity or non-necessity of these amendments. I think they are entirely superfluous, and for the purpose of bringing the matter before the Conven- tion, I move that they both be placed upon file. THE CHAIEMAN: It has been moved and seconded that both the amendments offered be placed on file. Upon that motion the Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Badenoch, Baker, Beebe, Ben- nett, Clettenberg, Cole, Crilly, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., November 30 50 1906 Eidmann, Erickson, Gansbergen, Hill, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Lundberg, McCormick, McKinley, Merriam, O ’Don- nell, Pendarvis, Eaymer, Revell, Shana- han, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Sunny, Swift, Werno, Wilkins, Young — 34. Nays — Beilfuss, Brown, Burke, Dever, Fisher, Guerin, Hoyne, Linehan, Owens, Post, Robins, Rosenthal, Thomp- son, Yopicka, White, Zimmer — 16. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion to file is carried. MR. WHITE: Mr. President, may I renew my request for information as to the number of committees not rep- resented on the steering committee? THE CHAIRMAN: There are none that are not represented. All of the comittees are represented. The next business is the report of the Committee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan. Report of Committee on Rules, Pro- cedure and General Plan. — B. A. Eck- hart, Chairman. Chicago Charter Convention. Gentlemen : The Rules of the Chicago Charter Convention provide that the Committee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan * ‘ shall submit to the Convention for its consideration such a resolution or series of resolutions as may be adopted to secure, so far as possible, an in- formal expression of opinion and a pre- liminary agreement in principle upon the chief general outlines of the pro- posed charter.” Acting upon this instruction, the committee has prepared a series of res- olutions, setting forth the main issues to be dealt with by the proposed legis- lation. Where differences of opinion have found expression in the reports of standing committees, or have otherwise been brought to the attention of the committee, involving not merely the negation of some positive proposition, resolutions embodying the various sug- gestions are submitted in the alterna- tive. It has been the aim of the commit- tee to afford a fair basis for full dis- cussion of every vital issue; and it pre- sents the following series of resolutions in conformity with its mandate, with- out endorsement or recommendation: B. A. ECKHART, Chairman. RESOLUTIONS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE CHICAGO CHARTER CONVENTION. I. SCOPE OF PROPOSED LEGIS- LATION. 1. A complete charter shall be drawn and submitted to the Legislature em- bodying the resolutions adopted by this Convention. Alternative to 1. Separate bills shall be drawn covering the following sub- jects: a. Consolidation (including parks), b. Public utilities, c. Education, d. Revenue, e. Amendments (if any) of the Mu- nicipal Court Act, f. All other charter provisions, which shall be submitted to a separate vote for adoption. II. CONSOLIDATION. 1. The corporate authorities existing at present for the government of the park systems of Chicago shall be abol- ished, and the management of the parks shall become a department of the city government. 2. The administration of the public school system of the City of Chicago and of the Public Library shall con- stitute departments of the city govern- ment. III. THE MAYOR. 1. The charter shall continue sub- stantially the provisions of the pres- ent laws regarding the qualifications and executive functions of the mayor. November 30 51 1906 2. The charter shall continue the provisions of the present laws regard- ing the relation of the mayor to the city council. First Alternative to 2: a. The mayor shall not preside over the city council, but the city council shall elect its own presiding officer from its members. b. The mayor shall have a right to a seat in the city council, but shall have no vote. He shall have the right to speak and present messages and introduce measures subject to the general rules of procedure of the city council. c. The mayor shall exercise the rights last above stated either in per- son or through an administrative offi- cer of the city. Second Alternative to 2: The charter shall continue the pres- ent provisions of the law regarding the relation of the mayor to the city coun- cil, except that he shall not preside at the meetings of the city council, but the city council shall elect its own presiding officer from its members. 3. The veto power of the mayor shall be as now prescribed by law. Alternative to 3: The veto power of the mayor shall be as now prescribed by law, except that his veto may be overridden by a vote of the majority of all the members of the city council. 4. The term of office of the mayor shall be four years. Alternative to 4: The term of office of the mayor shall be the same as that of the members of the city council. FIRST ALTERNATIVE TO III.— THE MAYOR. 1. There shall be elected by a vote of the entire city at the same time and for the same term a chief executive and administrative officer to be known as the mayor, and a chief legislative officer to be known as the president of the city council. The mayor shall ex- ercise all of the executive and admin- istrative functions (including the ap- pointment of heads of all administra- tive departments, subject to the ap- proval of the city council) now exer- cised by the mayor, with the modifica- tions and additions provided under this charter. The president of the city council shall preside over the council and shall exercise all of the legislative functions now exercised by the mayor, with the modifications and additions provided under this charter. 2. The president of the city council shall be ex officio chairman of the finance committee. 3. The president of the city council shall have the veto power, subject to be overruled by a vote of the council. SECOND ALTERNATIVE TO III.— THE MAYOR. 1. The mayor shall be elected by the city council for an indefinite term, and shall be subject to removal by the city council. 2. The mayor shall exercise all the executive and administrative functions (including the appointments of the heads of all administrative departments, subject to the approval of the city council) now exercised by the mayor, with the modifications and additions provided under this charter. 3. The mayor shall exercise no legis- lative functions and shall not preside over the city council, nor have the veto power. IV. ELECTIONS. 1. The elective city officers shall be nominated only by a petition of quali- fied voters. First alternative to 1: Elective city officers shall be nominated under a sys- tem of direct primaries. November 30 52 1906 Second alternative to 1: Elective city officers shall be nominated as now prescribed by law. 2. The names of all the nominees for each office shall be printed on the bal- lot under the title of the office for which they are candidates. 3. The charter shall contain no pro- vision for conferring the right of suf- frage on women. 4. a. The election of all city offi- cers, including those for the municipal court, shall be held in the spring. Alternative to a: The election of all city officers, except those for the munic- ipal court, shall be held in the spring, b. Spring elections for city offi- cers shall be held on the first Tues- day after the first Monday in May. 5. Candidates and political commit- tees shall be required to make sworn statements of receipts and expenditures of any campaign for nomination or election. V. CIVIL SERVICE. 1. All departments of the city gov- ernment shall be under an appropriate civil service law. Alternative to 1: a. The civil service law shall not apply to the department of public parks until the city council shall by ordinance so provide. b. The civil service law shall not apply to the municipal court. 2. Members of the classified serv- ice of any department may be removed by the head of the department for any cause specified in writing which will promote the efficiency of the service. They shall be given an opportunity to answer the specifications in writing, but shall not be entitled to a formal hear- ing. The civil service commission shall have power to investigate the cause of any removal and reinstate the person so removed. No removal shall be made for political or religious reasons. 3. The bailiff and chief clerk of the municipal court shall be appointed by the judges of the municipal court. • 4. All terms of office except those of the mayor and members of the city council and municipal court judges shall be indefinite. VI. THE CITY COUNCIL. 1. The charter shall provide for re- districting the city into seventy wards; one alderman to be elected from each ward. First alternative to 1: The number of wards and aldermen shall remain as at present fixed by law. Second alternative to 1: The num- ver of wards shall remain as at pres- ent, but only one alderman shall be elected from each ward. 2. The compensation of aldermen shall be at the rate of thirty-five hun- dred dollars per annum. VII. POWERS OF THE CITY COUN- CIL IN GENERAL. 1. The powers of the city council shall be as now prescribed by law, ex- cept as modified by this charter. Alternative to 1: The charter shall vest in the city council all the legisla- tive powers now conferred by the gen- eral cities and villages act and ad- ditions thereto, except as by other pro- visions of this charter modified; and in general, but subject to the pro- visions of this charter, all powers of local legislation which can under the constitution be vested in a municipal- ity. 2. The specification of particular powers shall never be construed as a limitation upon the general powers granted by the charter; it being in- tended to grant and bestow upon the City of Chicago all the powers of munic- ipal government which can constitu- tionally be delegated to it by the legis- lature and which are not expressly pro- hibited to it by this charter or some general law of the state or by the con- stitution of the state. 3. No ordinance, order or resolution shall be passed finally on the day it is November 30 53 1906 introduced, except when approved by an affirmative vote of three-fourths of all the members of the city council. VIII. POWERS OF THE CITY COUN- CIL WITH REGARD TO OFFICES. 1. The present powers of the city council to create new offices and de- partments and to abolish offices or de- partments created by it shall be con- tinued. 2. The offices of city clerk and city treasurer shall cease to be charter of- fices, and the city council shall have power by ordinance to provide for the method of choosing the city clerk and the city treasurer, and to provide for the duties of these officers. 3. The city council shall have power to investigate any department of the city government and the official acts and conduct of any city officer and the making, terms, and performance of any public contract, and for the pur- pose of ascertaining facts in connec- tion with such investigation to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of material documents and books. IX. POLICE POWER. 1. The police power of the city shall extend to the prevention of crime, to the preservation and advancement of local peace, safety, morals, health, or- der and comfort, and to the prevention of fraud and extortion within the com- munity, by measures of regulation, licensing, requirement of bonds, in- spection, registration, restraint and prohibition, as well as by the estab- lishment of municipal services. X. REVENUE. 1. The city charter shall limit the rate of the general tax to be levied an- nually for corporate, school, park and library purposes, exclusive of the taxes levied for the payment of bonded in- debtedness or interest thereon, to four and one-half per cent, of the assessed value of taxable property. Alternative to 1: a. The limit of the tax rate fixed by the charter shall not apply to taxes levied for school purposes, but taxes shall be levied for school build- ing and educational purposes as now provided by law. b. The limit of the tax rate to be fixed by the charter shall not apply to taxes levied for library purposes, but the city council shall annually levy for library purposes a tax of not less than one mill and not more than one and one-half mill on the dollar on all taxable property in the city. c. The city council shall have power to levy annually a tax of two mills on the dollar on all taxable property for a police pension fund. 2. The city council shall have power to levy a tax of one per cent, additional to the rate fixed by the above resolu- tion for a specific purpose or purposes, provided that such additional tax levy shall have been approved by a majori- ty of those voting on the question at a general or special election. 3. a. The city council shall have power to tax and license, or either, any trade, occupation or business car- ried on wholly or in part within the city limits, and all persons, firms or corporations owning or using franchises or privileges. b. Where the license fee is graded according to the value of the trade, occupation, business, franchise or privilege, or according to the amount of capital invested, or according to the amount of business done, it shall not exceed per cent, of such value or amount. 4. a. The city council shall also have power to tax or license all wheeled vehicles used upon the streets of the city, or any particular class of such vehicles. 5. The city shall have power to make local improvements by special as- November 30 54 1906 sessment, or by special taxation of con- tiguous property, or otherwise. Alternative to 5: The city council shall have power to make local im- provements by special assessment or by special taxation of contiguous prop- erty or otherwise; but not more than per cent, of the cost of repaving any street or alley shall thus be im- posed upon continguous property, after such street or alley has once been paved, and the expense thereof paid in whole or in part by special assessment or special taxation. 6. The city council shall have power to establish by ordinance any other sources and forms of municipal rev- enue to the full extent that the gen- eral assembly has power to authorize them to be established, except as other- wise provided in this charter; provided, that any such ordinance shall not go into effect until sixty days after its approval, and if within such sixty days ten per cent, of the registered voters of the city shall petition for a submis- sion of such ordinance to popular vote at the next succeeding general or spe- cial election, such ordinance shall not got into effect until and unless at such election it shall have been approved by a majority of the voters voting up- on the question. 7. The charter shall provide for pow- ers to be vested in the city for the assesment of property and the collec- tion of taxes within the city for cor- porate purposes in accordance with the principles of equality and uniformity prescribed by the constitution. ALTERNATIVE TO X. 1. The charter shall vest in the city council all power of legislation regard- ing all forms of revenue to be raised within the city for municipal purposes, that the general assembly has power to delegate to the city. XI. INDEBTEDNESS. 1. The charter shall vest in the city the power to assume and incur debts and issue bonds in the manner and to the extent that such power is permit- ted to be granted by the constitutional amendment of 1904. XII. EXPENDITURES. 1. The provisions of the present city act regarding the annual appropriation ordinance, the limitation of expendi- tures and contracts by such appropria- tions, the keeping of a separate fund for each appropriation, and the re- quirement of warrants for payments, shall be substantially embodied in the charter. XIII. PROPERTY. 1. The city may acquire property by purchase or condemnation for any purpose for which it may exercise the power of taxation. 2. The city may so acquire property outside of as well as within the city lim- its for any municipal purpose. nicipal purpose. XIV. CONTRACTS. 1. Municipal services may be per- formed and municipal works carried out by the city directly or by means of contract. 2. Contracts for work or supplies shall be let to the lowest responsible bidder, after public advertisement, sub- ject to limitations and exceptions to be established by general ordinance. XV. STREETS AND PUBLIC PLACES. 1. Provision shall be made for en- abling the city to exact compensation, at a rate to be fixed by general ordi- nance, for licensing the temporary use by private parties of space below as well as above the level of the surface of streets, alleys and other public places. First alternative to 1: a. The city shall have no power to exact compensation for the private use of space above the level of the surface November 30 55 1906 of streets, alleys and other public places, except where such use is grant- ed on behalf of some public utility. b. The city shall have no power to exact compensation for the private use of space below the level of the surface of streets, alleys and other public places, except where such use is grant- ed on behalf of some public utility. Second alternative to 1: All private users of space above or below the level of streets, alleys or other public places shall pay compensa- tion to the city according to some defi- nite scale to be fixed by general ordi- nance. This provision shall not apply to grants for public utilities. Third alternative to 1: The city shall not permit the private use of space above or below the level of the surface of streets, alleys or other public places, except for public util- ities. ^X"XVL PUBLIC UTILITIES. 1. The provisions of the Mueller law and the limitations contained therein (including the twenty-year limit on franchises), except as herein otherwise provided, shall be extended to all in- tramural railways, subways, telephone, telegraph, gas, electric lighting and power plants, and other local public utility works operated in, over, under or upon the streets and public places of the city, also to docks, wharves and their necessary appurtenances. 2. The present powers regarding wa- ter works and water supply shall be continued. 3. Any consent granted by the city for the private operation of public util- ity works shall be made subject to the continuing exercise of the city's street and police powers concerning the struc- ture or works permitted, whether re- served in the grant or not. 4. Such consent shall further be sub- ject to the power of the city to make reasonable regulations of the charges to be made by the owners or operators of such utilities for the services ren- dered by them, unless otherwise ex- pressly provided in the grant. Alternative to 4: Such consent shall further be subject to the power of the city, whether ex- pressly reserved in the grant or not, to make reasonable regulations of the charges to be made in the operation of such public utilities. The city shall have no power to grant away or limit the subsequent exercise of this right, except that the question of reasonable- ness of any such regulation shall always be determined with due regard to the provisions and limitations of the grant under which such public utility is be- ing operated. 5. Such consent shall further be sub- ject to the right of the city to require adequate service and reasonable exten- sions at all times. 6. All existing laws requiring front- age consents as a condition to the mak- ing of any public untility grant shall be repealed so far as the same relate to the city of Chicago, and the city council shall have the power to pro- vide by ordinance from time to time such requirements with regard to front- age consents in such cases as the city council may deem proper. XVII. PARKS, BOULEVARDS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS. 1. The management of the parks shall be vested in a board of park com- missioners consisting of nine members, who shall be appointed by the Appel- late Court judges of the First District for a term of three years, three mem- bers retiring every year. First alternative to 1: The park commissioners shall be ap- pointed by the mayor, with the consent of two-thirds of the members of the city council. November 30 56 1906 Second alternative to 1: The park commissioners shall be ap- pointed by the governor of the state. 2. Taxes may be levied and bonds is- sued for park purposes by the city coun- cil only upon the request of the park board; and park funds shall be paid out only upon the order of the park board. XVIII. EDUCATION. 1. a. The management of the pub- lic school system of the city shall be vested in a board of education of fif- teen members to be appointed by the mayor, with the approval of the city council. b. The members of the board of education shall serve for a term of four years, excepting that upon the first appointment of the board, three members shall be chosen for one year four for two years, four for three years and four for four years, and annually thereafter members shall be appointed to succeed those whose terms expire. c. The charter shall embody in substance the provisions of the bill reported by the committee on public education, and printed in the pro- ceedings of the Charter Convention of October 3, 1906, pp. 10-16 and 18, a copy of which is made a part of this report. FIRST ALTERNATIVE TO XVIII. 1. a. The public school system of the city of Chicago shall be managed by an elective board of education, com- posed of fifteen members. b. The members of the board of education shall be nominated by pe- tition. c. The members of the board of education shall be elected by a gen- eral ticket from the city at large. d. The members of the board of education shall be elected at a spe- cial election. e. The term of office of members of the board of education shall be four years. f. The ballot for election of mem- bers of the board of education shall not indicate the political affiliation • of the candidates. g. The cumulative system of vot- ing shall prevail in the election of members of the board of education. SECOND ALTERNATIVE TO XVIII. 1. The board of education as at present constituted shall be abolished. The public school system of the city of Chicago shall be divided into two de- partments, the administrative depart- ment and the educational department. The educational department shall be in charge of a superintendent of instruc- tion appointed by the mayor, with the approval of the city council.* The ad- ministrative department shall be a de- partment of the city government, at the head of which shall be a superin- tendent of school buildings and prop- erty, appointed by the mayor with the approval of the city council. XIX. LIBRARY. 1. The management of the public library shall be vested in a board of nine library directors, constituted as at present, and with the present powers and duties, except as herein otherwise provided. 2. The term of office of members of the library board shall be six years, three retiring every year. 3. The library board may establish branch libraries and reading rooms, sub- ject to the approval of the city council. XX. PENAL, CHARITABLE AND REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS. 1. The charter shall grant to the city, in addition to the powers which it has now: a. Authority to maintain alms- houses. November 30 57 1906 b. Authority to maintain lodging houses, and free employment bu- reaus in connection therewith. c. Authority to maintain creches for infants. d. Authority to maintain training schools for dependent and indigent children. 2. The city shall have power to con- tract with the county of Cook for the detention, housing and care of indigent persons, prisoners, or dependent or de- linquent children. XXI. INITIATIVE AND REFEREN- DUM. 1. The charter shall make provision for submission to popular vote of meas- ures within the jurisdiction of the city council by a petition of — r — per cent, of the voters of the city, such proposed measures to take effect as ordinances when approved by a majority of votes cast at the election (or: upon the ques- tion). 2. The charter shall provide that any ordinance (other than an emergency ordinance) passed by the city council shall not go into effect until days after the passage thereof, and if within that time per cent, of the voters of the city petition for the submis- sion of such ordinance to popular vote at the next succeeding general or spe- cial election, such ordinance shall not go into effect until and unless at such elec- tion it shall have been approved by a majority of the voters voting upon the question. Alternative to 2: The charter shall provide that any ordinance granting the use of any street or alley for any public utility shall not go into effect until days after the passage thereof, and if within that time per cent, of the voters of the city petition for the sub- mission of such ordinance to popular vote at the next succeeding general or special election, such ordinance shall not go into effect until and unless at such election it shall have been ap- proved by a majority of the voters vot- ing upon the question. XXII. RELATION OF THE CHAR- TER TO OTHER LAWS, AND AMENDMENTS TO CHARTER. 1. Any act of the general assembly that shall be passed after the adoption of this charter relating to the govern- ment or the affairs of the cities of the state or of cities containing a stated number of inhabitants or over shall be construed as not applying to the city of Chicago. 2. The charter shall re-enact the pro- visions (not inconsistent with these res- olutions) of the existing laws applicable to the government of the city of Chi- cago, and shall vest in the city council power to amend such of these provisions as the charter may specify. 3. The city council shall have power to amend any part of this charter with the approval of three-fifths of those voting on the proposed change at any election, provided that the tax rate established by this charter shall not be increased nor the twenty-year limit on franchises be altered, nor the munic- ipal court act amended, nor any pro- vision be made for the exercise of any power not strictly local or municipal in its character. 4. The charter shall make provision for submission to popular vote of amendments to the charter, proposed by a petition of per cent, of the voters of the city, such proposed amendments to become part of the charter when ap- proved by a majority of the votes cast at the election (or: upon the question). Provided, that in this manner the tax rate established by this charter shall not be increased, nor the twenty-year limit on franchises be altered, nor the municipal court act amended, nor any provision be made for the exercise of any power not strictly local or munic- ipal in its character. November 30 58 1906 MR. ECKHART: A copy of this re- port and series of resolutions as pre- pared and submitted by this comittee have been sent to every member of the Convention, and they are now before the Convention. I also desire to present a recommendation of the committee, and I move the adoption of this resolu- tion THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the resolution. THE SECRETARY read: That all speeches in debate shall be limited to ten minutes, and no member shall speak more than once upon any question, mo- tion or amendment before the Charter Convention. This rule may be waived by the unanimous consent or by the formal vote of the Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion. The chairman of the committee offering it moves its adoption. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, may I ask for a point of order. Under our rules, can we adopt such a resolu- tion? The first rule is the one I re- fer to. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the rule. THE SECRETARY read: First- Parliamentary procedure of this Con- vention shall be governed by Roberts’ Rules of Order, except as otherwise provided in this report, or by any future rule or order of this Convention adopt- ed at a meeting held at least three days previously by a majority vote of all its members. THE CHAIRMAN: The chair wil 1 rule that this rule will have to lay over, unless there is a suspension of the rules. MR. ECKHART: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the unanimous consent of the Convention on a suspension of the rules, in order to adopt this resolution. THE CHAIRMAN: Does the chair hear any objection to a suspension of the rule and adoption of that resolu tion? If not, it is so ordered. The rule is adopted. The report of the Commit- tee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan is now before the Convention. The chair would like to call attention to the fact that there is a revised copy in the hands of each one of the delegates pres- ent. It was found, after the first copy had been mailed, that it had some dupli- cates ond some typographical errors, so a revised copy was prepared. MR. FISHER: I haven’t got a copy of this revised copy. THE CHAIRMAN: I presume there should be a motion made that the Con- vention proceed to the consideration of these resolutions. MR. ECKHART: I make that mo- tion that the Convention proceed with the consideration of the resolutions rec- ommended by the Committee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan. The motion prevailed. THE CHAIRMAN: The first resolu- tion is the scope of proposed legislation The chair would like to suggest for the consideration of this Convention that it might be well to leave that topic until after the Convention has discussed in what form and shape the legislation shall be. I apprehend it will be for the Convention to determine what shape these measures shall take. I would like personally to give that matter to the Convention for its consideration. MR. FISHER: I move that the ac- tion on this first resolution, entitled “ Scope of Proposed Legislation,” be deferred until the Convention has con- sidered the other resolution presented for the Committee on General Plan. The motion prevailed. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read No. 2, “Consolidation.” THE SECRETARY read: CONSOLIDATION. 1. The corporate authorities exist- ing at present for the government of the park systems of Chicago shall be abol- ished, and the management of the parks November 30 59 1906 shall become a department of the city government. 2. The administration of the public school system of the City of Chicago and of the public library shall consti- tute departments of the city govern- ment. MR FISHER: I move that when these resolutions are read that the chair consider a motion to adopt each particu- lar motion, being the first resolution under each head, as before the house, and the matter be open for discussion. THE CHAIRMAN: If there are no objections, that will be the procedure. The first paragraph of the second sec- tion is now before the house. The ques- tion is before the house. MR. LATHROP: I move the adop- tion of that resolution. THE CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and seconded that this section be adopted. The matter is before the house for such disposition as the Con- vention wishes to make of it. If there are no remarks, all those in favor of the adoption signify by saying Aye. The motion prevailed. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read paragraph 2. THE SECRETARY: The adminis- tration of the public school system of the City of Chicago and of the public library shall constitute departments of the city government. MR. LATHROP: I move its adop- tion MR. ECKHART: I second the mo- tion. THE CHAIRMAN: It will be in ac cordance with Mr. Fisher’s suggestion. Unless there is some substitution, the matter is before the house. MR. WHITE: I would ask that the chairman of the committee explain to ns more in detail just what essential change this resolution, the second one, would bring about in the present admin- istration of the school system; just how and what would it be; what change would there be from the present sys- tem; what is the essential change from the present existing relationship to the school board — the relationship of the school board to the city government? THE CHAIRMAN: I don’t under- stand there is any essential change. When the specific subject was brought up the manner of appointment was dis- cussed in detail. This is simply a part of the plan of consolidation. It does not go into the question of the method of appointment. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor saye Aye. The motion prevailed. THE CHAIRMAN: I suggest that when this matter is taken up the Secre- tary read the entire section and then take it up section by section. The Sec- retary will now read No. 3, “The Mayor ” THE SECRETARY read: III. THE MAYOR. 1. The charter shall continue sub- stantially the provisions of the present laws regarding the qualifications and executive functions of the mayor. 2. The charter shall continue the provisions of the present law regarding the relation of the mayor to the city council. First alternative to 2: a. The mayor shall not preside over the city council, but the city council shall elect its own presiding officer from its members. b. The mayor shall have a right to a seat in the city council, but shall have no vote. He shall have the right to speak and present messages and intro- duce measures subject to the general rules of procedure of the city council. c. The mayor shall exercise the rights last above stated either in per- son or through an administrative officer of the city. Second alternative to 2: The charter shall continue the present provisions of the law regarding the re- lation of the mayor to the city council, November 30 60 1906 except that he shall not preside at the meetings of the city council, but the city council shall elect its own presiding officer from its members. 3. The veto power of the mayor shall be as now prescribed by law. Alternative to 3: The veto power of the mayor shall be as now prescribed by law, except that his veto may be overridden by a vote of the majority of all the members of the city council. 4. The term of office of the mayor shall be four years. Alternative to 4: The term of office of the mayor shall be the same as that of the members of the city council. MR. POST: I move that the whole subject be passed for the purpose of making it a special order at a particular day. It seems to me that is too broad a subject for us to take up at this first meeting for consultation on the part of the Charter Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: Is not that true about every section, Mr. Post? MR. POST: If it is, let us make some special orders. Let us not rush this thing through, after a year has been spent. A great deal of time, I am sure, has been expended unnecessarily. There is no necessity for this meeting to take any such action, for such immediate action as to force us to the considera- tion of very important questions, when we have come here prepared for an- other purpose. I believe we should make preliminary preparations for dis- cussing that; I don’t think we could make a very satisfactory recommenda- tion — I don’t think it could get very satisfactory recommendation from the Convention if it undertook to take up such important matters now. If there is no objection raised against it, I say that I believe we should make that a special order, and if all the rest of the matters are as important as that. I think we should make them special or- ders and get ahead as rapidly as possi- ble. We can by passing these more important ones, I believe; if we can do that and take up those matters on which we are agreed, and on which we know the whole city is agreed practical- ly, we can dispose of the more per- functory matters and come down to our next meeting determined to pass upon the more important matters having alternative recommendations. MR. BENNETT: I doubt if we will be able to settle this question to-day. It seems to me there is no more op- portune time to commence the discus- sion than now. This is probably the most important subject in the Charter Convention, and if we enter into a gen- eral discussion, and then if we leave here with the thoughts that have been expressed by the members of this Con- vention and come back at a subsequent meeting, we will be better prepared then to intelligently discuss the ques- tion. Therefore I think the discussion should be proceeded with at this time. MR POST: I have no objection, Mr. Chairman, to having the discussion pro- ceed. That is not the purpose of my motion. THE CHAIRMAN: It is not to pre- sent the discussion of the question, as I understand it. MR. POST: The only object of my motion is to prevent final action at this time. THE CHAIRMAN: Well then, we will assume for the time being that the matter is before the house for dis- cussion. MR. MACMILLAN: I suggest that we have the balance of that read. The secretary read the first alterna- tive to 3. FIRST ALTERNATIVE TO III.— THE MAYOR, 1. There shall be elected by a vote of the entire city at the same time and for the same term a chief executive November 30 61 1906 and administrative officer to be known as the mayor, and a chief legislative officer to be known as the president of the city council. The mayor shall ex- ercise all of the executive and admin- istrative functions (including the ap- pointment of heads of all administra- tive departments, subject to the ap- proval of the city council) now exer- cised by the mayor, with the modifi- cations and additions provided under this charter. The president of the city council shall preside over the council and shall exercise all of the legislative functions now exercised by the mayor, with the modifications and additions provided under this charter. 2. The president of the city council shall be ex officio chairman of the finance committee. 3. The president of the city council shall have the veto power, subject to be overruled by a vote of the council. 5. The president of the city council shall be ex officio chairman of the finance committee of the city council. THE CHAIRMAN: The entire sub- ject matter is now open for discussion. MR. JONES: Inasmuch as these re- solutions have alternative propositions which are in the nature of amendment^ would it not be better for us to proceed and take up the last alternative pro position and discuss that first as we would an amendment, and then vote upon that, and in that way gradually work back to the original resolution? THE CHAIRMAN: That is a matter for the Convention to decide, in what manner it wants to attack the subject. MR. REVELL: I hope we will act upon this matter with a view not alone of discussion to-day, but of voting upon these matters. I do not see what is to be gained by delay. There seems to be a constant hint all the time of delaying something. This matter ha^ been before the people for more than a year, these matters have been before the various committees, and they have at times been referred to the commit- tee on plan and rules. They have got- ten out printed pamphlets containing these various amendment provisions, and these have been in the hands of various members of the Convention foi more than three or four days. I don’t see how we can get on with these matters, which have been in our hands for a period of nearly a year if we keep on deferring and deferring. I think we should vote upon these vari- ous matters, which is simply informal in its nature — THE CHAIRMAN: There is no mo- tion before the house, Mr. Revell. MR. REVELL: Well, I have said all I intended to say. THE CHAIRMAN: The proposition is whether we shall proceed to the dis- cussion of these resolutions, and the only question is what method and what shape shall it take, and Senator Jones suggests that we take the last one one first. MR. JONES: I put that in the form of a motion, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion. The chair would like to have further sugestions if they occur to anybody as to the best methods of taking up this proposition. If 'there are no further objections, th motion will be put. MR. FISHER: What is the motion? THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is to take the last proposition in the lowei right hand column, page 4, first. MR. FISHER: I think that is a good suggestion, to proceed with the last alternative and move towards the othei propositions. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor of that say aye. The motion prevailed. MR. SHANAHAN: In - the matter before the Convention I move that the second alternative be laid upon the table. November 30 62 1906 ME. BENNETT: I think it is well for us to enter now upon the discussion of the main question as to whether the mayor of the city shall be elected by the council or by the people. Upon that I would like to be heard. The custom in England and most of the larger cities of the Continent is along the lines of this substitute alternative proposition. To us at first blush it might seem a radical departure from our present custom, but I am not sur that it is not worthy of our careful consideration before passing upon it This substitute calls for the election of the mayor by the council from amon; its members. The experience of foreign countries has been that where the mayo: is elected in this way politics in a large measure are eliminated from the ex- ecutive office. The mayor brings to office the experience and learning he has gained while serving in the cit council. To-day a mayor may be elected, he is almost always elected upon some particular topic which he takes up as his slogan for election. The result is that when he goes into office the whole executive department of the city is en- deavoring to carry out the policy which may or may not be in keeping witl the conservative position as generally taken by the city councils. I say c servative, because a body of men a' ways acts with more conservatism t does the individual. The benefit of tlu experience of a collective body of mer is more apt to be right than the single opinion of an individual. So I say it is well for us to pause and conside* before passing upon this subject defi nitely whether this is not the best pol- icy. If you will study the best writer on municipal affairs to-day you will find they are almost all agreed upon thir proposition. I do not agree with th< proposition that the mayor should no preside at the council meetings; 1 lieve that he learns more in the cha‘ of the council than he will learn else where. He will be in closer touch with the progress of municipal affairs if he keeps in touch with the council, years I have believed that the execu tive of the city and the city council should have worked in greater har- mony, because by united effort very much more is accomplished than by individual effort. The city coune' whatever may be said of it by those who are not in touch with its work ings, is a body in which there are al- ways men who have had experience and who are in touch with the needs and necessities of the city, and by plac ing upon them the duty of selecting the executive of the city you are insured a better city council. It will make the citizen more careful about whom he sends to the legislative body where you divide that responsibility. So I say that the members of this Conven- tion should consider this question closely before passing upon it. MR. McCORMICK: It has been very seldom that I have differed from Al- derman Bennett on questions of public policy, but upon this question I will take issue with him. The proposition that the mayor of the City of Chicago or the executive of the government should be elected by the legislature or the governing body is not a new one in this community. Nor is it one that has proven successful. In the national government, and in the city and state government, the principle of having the executive elected by the people and separate from the legislature has been established since the very foundation of the government, and the suggestion is yet to come of the national govern- ment or of the city government or presi- dents being elected by Congress or the Legislature. In the early years the County Board elected its president through its trustees, and because it was not considered a good rule, a good working rule, the legislature of 1903 amended the act so that its president November 30 63 1906 should be elected by the people. There is undoubtedly a great deal of truth in what Alderman Bennett says, that the mayor and city council should work harmoniously together, and that they should be organized to work harmoni- ously. There are two things to keep in mind in regard to the legislature: one is the use to which the legislature should be put, and the other the abuses to which it may be subjected. If the ex- ecutive of the City of Chicago were to be elected by the council, the records I am sure will show, and experienc' has proven before, that the counci. would organize so that a majority would control the executive. It has been sc in the past; it is sure to be so in the future. Then you would have an ex- ecutive who should stand up for the good of the public, but you would find him subject to that majority; you would find him subject to individuals of the majority if he wishes to hold the ma- jority behind him to keep him mayor of the city, so that a small majority would control him, he would be constantly threatened by a few peo- ple and would not be an indepen- dent mayor; he would be a creature of a political combination. I mention this for your consideration, because I believe we do not want to take any steps backward in city government by taking up things that were found in- sufficient in several other instances. MR. THOMPSON: I believe it is the desire of a large number of the people of the City of Chicago to secure some sort of good self government, and the very first proposition made is to take away the government from the people and place it in the hands of the city council in the election of thr mayor. I believe that this Charter Convention should adopt no such pro position as proposes the election of the mayor by the city council; I believe that if it should, the new charter would not get ten per cent, of the votes of the people; the people vote to elect the mayor in order to have one man in the city council who is responsible to the people; and I can imagine such a situation as would exist in the City of Chicago were the Coun- cil to elect the mayor for the people. Why, the street railways and telephone companies and all the other franchise- holding corporations would have very little difficulty in controlling the city council and the mayor. The people would have no redress, no voice, for the reason that a mayor selected by the city council would probably be confined to the 35th Ward, or some ward out south, where the people of the other part of the city could not reach him. I don ’t think I have any more to say. I am opposed to having the mayor elected by the city council, and I hope the delegates will vote it down. MR. FISHER: While this topic is up before the Convention it would be well to have the question discussed from a broad point of view, and I am convinced of that by the statement of the last speaker. A large part of the reason for calling this Convention and the desire for a new charter for the City of Chicago, is the desire of the people of this city to have greater participation in the government of the city; by that I mean a more effective participation. Would that not be so if they were to elect the officers, if they were to elect those who select the of- ficers? Both the legislative and execu- tive side? But there is a feeling abroad among the people, some how or other, that the participation has no practical effect. I wish to say what my own notion is on that subject from such study as I have been able to give this subject, and such experience as I have had. One thing I know, that it is necessary, in order to bring about ef fective participation of the people in the government, to reduce the number of elective officers, that is, to get be- November 30 64 1906 fore the people upon each election, as definitely and succinctly as possible, the issue of that election, and not to have it confused with other issues. In this city to-day and for many years past we have been in the habit of elect- ing a mayor who was supposed to be able to perform the functions of the mayor. Who is the mayor of this city? He is supposed to be the chief execu- tive officer; and yet it is within the knowledge of every member of this Convention that we have not elected a man in this city at any time since 1896 as the chief executive of this city. We have elected a mayor on each occasion because of his advocacy of some particular legislative policy, and we have paid little or no attention to his executive or administrative func- tions. We all know that the question upon which Mr. Harrison was elected mayor of this city for years was the question of his attitude of the street railroad franchise; and we all know that the issue upon which Mayor Dunne was elected at the last election was his position on the management of the street railway. I say to the Convention that never so long as we elect an ex- ecutive and administrative officer for his advocacy of a legislative proposi- tion will we get a good administration in this city. There are always in every election two questions before the people, namely with every candidate: Shall we elect a good executive and a poor legislator or shall we elect a first class legislator and a relatively poor executive? Rarely indeed will it come to pass that the same man combines in himself both qualifications in any degree. The thing which will do more to produce clear responsible and responsive government in this city than anything else will be to bring about a state of affairs that when we elect a member to the city council we are electing a man in that position who can perform the functions and duties of a member of the city council, not merely the legislative func- tions determining questions of policy. And when we elect a mayor we shall elect a man who is going to be elected because of his executive or adminis- trative capacity. That is a fundamen- tal proposition. I know it is said that when the members of the city council elect the mayor he will be under the control of a combination of aider- men, or something of that sort, just as Mr. McCormick has stated. But what are the functions of the executive offi- cer of the municipality? They are, or they should be, to carry into effect that legislative policy which the legislative body has determined, nothing else; there should be no difference between the democratic enforcement of the law or of an ordinance and a republican enforcement of the same law or the same ordinance. Now if the ordinance is susceptible of two constructions the city council or the legislature, the legis- lative power or whatever it is, should pass such amendment to that ordinance as is necessary, so that it would mean but one thing, and it will mean that one thing, to the executive officer of this city, if there is an or- dinance upon the book which is not intended to be enforced. It is bring- ing about disrespect for the law, it is responsible more than anything else for the growing disrespect for the law in this community and this entire nation, — now with an executive who can go to the body which creates that and say, “I am willing to enforce your ordin- ance, but I don’t know just what it means,” “By passing this ordinance, do you mean this or do you mean that?” The members of the city council could not take refuge in the proposition, “We passed that ordinance, it is up to you to enforce it.” I say to you that in the statute books in this state to-day there is, for instance, a law for Sunday closing; I say to you that it is upon November 30 65 1906 the statute books because the members of the legislature of the State of Illin- ois relied upon the fact it would not be locally enforced unless local senti- ment was in favor of it. The execu- tive is not responsible for the passage of that law, not responsible to the men who passed it, and as a result you have a dead law upon the statute book; you have a law that breeds disrespect for the law, and that will continue to breed disrespect for law so long as it remains there and remains there unen- forced. If to-day we were to elect members of the city council that were going to select the mayor to rule over this city, the voter would vote . for the alderman with some knowledge of what that alderman was going to do upon that fundamental question of the ex- ecutive and administrative policy, and would depend upon him to carry that into effect. It has been said here and elsewhere, and it has been said by Mr. McCormick a few moments ago, that up to date nobody has proposed the elec- tion of the Governor and President, the election of those officers, by the Legis- lature or by Congress. I believe that Mr. McCormick unfortunately has not read apparently the latest and best and most authorititative discussion on the question of a democratic govern- ment. I don’t know how many^members of this Convention know af>out it, and I beg your pardon ii-L mention i^, as most of you may "not have read ii; it is by a man narped Oscar\ Gorskt, a Russian, who hai written on tlj/ sub- ject of democracy v an d the^ yarfious po- litical parties, a work which Mr. Bryce j of England, an authority upon the ques- | tion of American government, mentions | in authoritative discussion; the whole policy of American government in that work upon the American constitution, is discussed; and that book marks an epoch in the discussion of this subject; and the whole burden of the work is a consideration of that subject from its very foundation, and an analysis of it, of the conditions as they are, and the conclusion of the whole work is that never will you get effective govern- ment in this country until Congress does elect the President. Now that may sound radical to some of you perhaps, but as Alderman Bennett has pointed out, it is the policy adopted in all the foreign countries, foreign municpal gov- ernment everywhere without exception. The only exception of any consequence with which I am familiar was in Paris, where the national government itself selects and imposes upon the state its chief executive; that the policy every- where has been to have the city council elect its executive and hold him respon- sible to that council, so that when the legislative policy changes the enforce- ment of the law changes with it, and when the city council has determined that an ordinance shall be so and so, the executive is responsible for it. We would see immediately a great im- provement in the city council if this policy were brought about. It would tend at once to improve the whole personnel and character of the city council. It would dignify the meetings and add greatly to the efficiency of the members, more than any other step that could be taken in this community. There are two functions of the mayor with which we are familiar and to which we attach importance. The first one I have referred to, the executive and administrative capacity, his en- forcement of the law as the chief ex- ecutive, and that of the chief legis- lator. The other function to which we must attach importance is the exercise of the veto power. These two things have no relation to one another, you may say. As Mr. McCormick has said, the government was founded with the policy of differentiating and separating the great departments, the judicial, the I executive and the administrative. And November 30 66 1906 what has been the result in the national government? The result has been that it practically abandoned the exercise of the veto power. Now take it when Mr. Cleveland was President; how often was his veto power exercised? What about this practice brought to perfection by President McKinley? Why, the Presi- dent would confer with the members of the Senate in advance, and in fact the discussions were broad on all ques- tions with the Senate, and so that is a matter THE CHAIRMAN: Your time has expired, Mr. Fisher. MR. ECKHART: I ask for a suspen sion of the rules, and that Mr. Fisher be allowed to proceed. THE CHAIRMAN: That is for thf Convention to decide; are you ready for the question? The motion prevailed. MR. FISHER: Gentlemen, I have no desire to impose my views upon anyone unnecessarily, but I am interested in this subject, and I regard it as of very vital importance for the success of this work. President McKinley, as I was saying, perfected the system under which, before a bill went through the House of Representatives or through the Senate particularly, he called be- fore him into conference the men who were controlling the policies of those respective matters and in almost every instance they agreed upon the policy of legislation before it went into effect. Now what about the city coun- cil of to-day? We can look back over the days when Carter Harrison sat with the local transportation committee in various matters. When it proposed the framing of a so called tentative ordin- ance, he sat with that committee and discussed with them the ordinance, and he had the final word, the veto power which he might exercise in regard to every section of that ordinance if it did not suit him. The same is true I to-day. I am not complaining of it; it | is the necessary outgrowth of our policy. Now we have the mayor of the city sit- ting with a committee from the Tele- phone Company and with a committee from the Transportation Company, ex- ercising the function of a member of the city council. Now I say to you that may be all right, if we are to elect a man to do that thing, if the people of Chicago want to elect a man who is going to be the chief legislative officer, a man who shall represent the whole power of the people as distinguished from the representatives of the several wards, if that is a wise policy, if he is intelligent, it may be all right as far as that goes, but when at the same time you are electing a man as chief executive, and one who is chief legis- lator, you are combining two proposi- tions. Now you cannot combine those two propositions, and you must chose in selecting a man. Suppose for in- stance, to illustrate, two men are run- ning for offices in city elections; here is a man running for the office of mayor; everybody in the community practically concedes, let us say, that he has the highest executive qualifications, is a better administrative official than any of his competitors; but upon a question of public policy then of immediate im- portance he has a certain position with which the majority of the people in the City do not agree; and then another of his competitors who may have little or no executive capacity, who cannot claim any very great administrative or execu- tive experience, happens to be in accord with the majority of people upon this single question of legislative policy, why, the people will elect the second man with the result that we have possibly a rela- tively insufficient administration. Now, if you put the mayor in a position where he is responsible to the council, where he is responsible for only exe- cuting the law, where the man that executes the law has no other connec- tion with the law, has no views upon November 30 67 1906 the policy itself, only the one proposi- tion, that “I am here as executive to execute whatever law you pass,” then you will get an efficient executive ad- ministrative. MR. COLE: I would like to ask a question. THE CHAIRMAN: You may, Mr. Cole. MR. COLE: I would like to ask Mr. Fisher if he thinks if the Congress of the United States had been electing the President that we would have had any rate legislation last winter? MR. FISHER: That would depend upon when you adopted it. The one great difficulty with all discussions of these things is this, that sometimes we think that when we have any change in the government, that if we have a change in one thing we imagine that all the rest is going to change, as it were. Now that never happened. If it had been the policy of the people of this country for any considerable period, any period long enough so that the people understood the policy that they were electing members of Congress only, a legislator, and not say, “Why, that is John Smith, of this district, why that is all right; John will go down there, he is a good fellow, he is a good fellow, he don’t do very much, but if he don’t do it why the President will veto it; that is all right.” And John goes down there, and he will carry out the Presi- dent’s policy. So long as we are elect- ing men to Congress on that basis w( won ’t get any initiative or or any good government. Ml?. COLE: If the common council had been electing a mayor in 1898 and in 1900 would we have had the stree' car question settled between the City and street car companies at the pres- ent time, in your opinion? MR. FISHER: In my judgment we would. Not if it started in 1898. Let us be frank with one another. No, not if the first council that elected a mayor had beeii elected in 1898, no, because we would have had half the council at least elected under circumstances when that would not have been the policy of the people at all; but I say to you if you elect a Congress to-day — I should say if you elect a member of the city council to-day, and it was understood by the people of this city that the coun- cil so elected was really going to settle your street car question, I say you would get that kind of a council; you would not get in there any other kind of a council. But not under a situation such as you have now, where wards that vote in favor of a certain policy in re- gard to public franchises elect an aider- man, a man that is known by everybody to be against that policy. If a city will elect to its council as a member of such council over and over again men from a certain ward who are in favor of a policy or against a policy that is absolutely diametrically op- posed to the conscience of their con- stituents, what then? Why, the reason they do that is because the constituents say, “We are going to elect so and so mayor, and he is going to control that policy, because he has the veto power.” So you will never get good responsible public government until you do away with that situation. It should be so that when the people are voting for an ex- ecutive they vote for an executive, and when they vote for a legislator, they vote in favor of a legislator. I men- tion these facts for the reason that I am not clear that the people of this town have thought enough about this question yet to go to the proposition, which is really the proposition which they are to adopt, namely, this alter- native we are about to vote upon, and for that reason Alternative No. 2 was sugested in here, that we should elect two officers, one a president of the city council elected with this veto power, a man who will be elected as chief execu- tive, a man whom the masses of the November 30 68 1906 people will vote for because » he will represent the entire city and stand i place of the mayor on all of those ques- tions which the mayor can exercise that are not legislative in character, and when they elect a mayor who will be only the mayor, the chief executive and administrative officer. Personally, I believe in the resolu- tion, the alternative before the House now is the final word on wise municipal government. Whether that be admitted or not, I believe that every intelligent person in this city will be in favor of it and none more in favor of it than those who believe in the greatest pos- sible freedom and responsibility of pub- lic government. MR. B.| A. ECKHART: I would like to say a few words; a great deal has been said by the different speakers who have just spoken, and very beautifully too. I remember a great many years ago when the president of the County Board was elected by the members of the Board, and remember distinctly that at that time it was always considered a promiscuous practice; it was always brought before the public in such a manner as to indicate that there was some scandal in connection with the president of the board, and it was uni- versally condemned by the public and the practice was discontinued. I also recall some years ago when the sanitary district law was passed and the trustees elected its president. We all remem- ber distinctly that when the president was chosen by members they had no such lofty ideas in their heads, at least they did not express them, that the man who was best qualified for the position should be elected. Usually it was, “How much can I make out of it or get out of it? What combination can I make?” It was not the exalted and lofty idea expressed by Mr. Fisher that the members of the County Board or the Sanitary District had in their minds, as to who was the best qualified man or who had the best executive abil- ity, but what can I make out of it? what combination can I effect? And so combinations were effected, and the man who was elected had to stand for them. That is the practical result. There are some things we can follow and that we can copy from the law and practices on the other side; there are other things which would be a fallacy to copy and practice. Many years ago. the practice of electing a mayor the chief executive was abandoned by the city, by this city council. It was aban- doned. Whatever the circumstances were, the people felt they had good and distinct reasons for abandoning it. I believe that the mayor of the City of Chicago should be elected by the people, and I do not believe that you can to-day frame a charter and submit it to the people of this city and the legislature. I don’t think they will adopt a pro- position by which the council may elect a mayor. MR. McCORMICK: I rise to a ques- tion of privilege. THE CHAIRMAN: The rules pro- vide that a speaker shall not be heard but once. MR. McCORMICK: Merely because my acquaintance with the literature on the subject has been questioned. I am acquainted with the book spoken of by the gentleman who preceded Mr. Eck- hart. I did not mention the fact that there it was suggested that the Presi- dent of the United States could be elected by the Senate because of this fact; I do not think we are looking for lessons in government from Russia. The book is undoubtedly a thorough and ably written one, and useful for the purpose of schools, possibly, but for the teaching of politicians who have spent two years or more in the city council, or have spent several years elsewhere it has no value. Its com- ments on American politics are so loose as in my mind to be ridiculous. It November 30 69 1906 may be of use for the purpose of in- structing the ignorant, but it is of nc value to the gentlemen of this Con vention, I am sure, and I feel that they would rather vote in accordance with their own experience and their experi- ence with the city, than according to the views of the most learned academic- school or municipal government teach ers. THE CHAIRMAN : The chair wil suggest that when motions are mad hereafter to extend the time of speaker that it be extended for r specific time; the chair does not wan J to have any misunderstanding, so tin motion should fix the time. MR. ROSENTHAL: This particul alternative that has been suggested here, it seems to me, under our system of government would be a disappoint- ment. We have not applied that system in any particular locality of the whole United States, but we have to face con- ditions as we find them. I would be willing to see a great many checks and balances in order to have a responsible government, a government responsible to public demands, but we are not ready for that at the present time. The people are not ideally trained, and we have to take the people as we fin* them; for that reason, Mr. Chairman, il seems to me we need those checks am balances that we have at the present time. Suppose we turned to this othe system, the result might be just exactk as it was and as it has been in tin legislature. The legislature is to elect a senator. If the persons are elected to the legislature with reference to their opinion on the senatorship it might rea sonably be held they would elect per sons to that office with reference to their opinion upon the question of the executive, or the personnel of the e' ecutive. And while it may be said that these duties of the executive depart ment entrench upon the functions o the legislative department, to my op : ion that furnishes no sufficient reason for making a radical change of thi nature. The city council at variou times has seen fit to assert itself, and the city council will rely upon that in future. In the future it will assert itself and refuse to be dominated so far as its legislative policies are con cerned by an executive officer. Tin mere fact that it has done so or has not done so at various times in the past furnishes to my opinion no sufficient reason for making a radical change of this character. MR. LINEHAN: I would like to as a question for information. Is it the intention of this amendment that the mayor shall be elected from the city council, or from a body of citizens that the city council might desire? THE CHAIRMAN: If I understand it, the discussion is of the second alter- native to No. 3, which does not limit the election of mayor to the city coun- cil; simply provides that the mayor shall be elected by the city council. MR. SNOW : Before this question is put to a vote of this Convention it seems to me we should consider it from the standpoint of practical things as they exist in Chicago, and as they are likely to continue lo exist, with the political conditions that prevail in this municipality, and in all American municipalities. I might very readily agree that the City of Chicago would perhaps be better served if it were accustomed to select a chief executive officer from the membership of its city council, because of the experience which they have secured, and because of the knowledge which they, have gained of municipal affairs; but it seems to me that to provide that the mayor shall be elected by the city council will inevi- tably bring about a condition of affairs by which the members of the city coun- cil elected to the city council will be so elected practically as the gentlemen who are on the electoral ticket at the November 30 70 1906 national election. It is true, as Mr. Fisher has said, that the election of the mayor of Chicago in the past and probably in the future, will hinge upon some single question of the hour. But if the city council is elected for the purpose of electing that mayor it must follow inevitably that the council itself will be chosen for the purpose of electing the mayor, and they will be chosen upon the same single issue therefor that the mayor is chosen upon. Now, if Mr. Fisher is correct, that we do not secure the best executive ability when we elect a chief magistrate simply upon some question of the hour, then it equal- ly follows that we will not secure the best results in electing a council if the membership of that entire council is to be selected upon that one single issue. Now it has happened frequently in the mayoralty election, that the member elected to the council comes from one political party, whereas the majority vote of that ward is for the candidate of the other party. Is that condition of affairs better, or will the gentleman maintain it would be better to select the members of the city council solely upon the political issue? That would be the practical result. Now it cer- tainly seems to me that we should, as far as possible, divorce the legislative body of Chicago from a purely political issue; but if I am right in that view, to adopt this alternative would mean that the city council should be elected purely upon partisan lines because of the conditions which prevail in this municipality, and all others, the chief executive, will continue to be nomi- nated and elected from the political parties. MR. MERRIAM: I am greatly sur- prised at the attitude of my neighbor, Alderman Snow, and Mr. Eckhart and Mr. McCormick on this question. This is an original proposition, the election of a mayor by popular vote, and in opposition to the time-honored and suc- cessful system of chosing the mayor by means of the votes of the city coun- cil. What is the newest proposition in the world of municipal affairs? Who left this child on our doorstep, this doctrine which is spoken of here, this plan known as the newest form of municipal government? I venture to say there is not now on the face of the globe a successfully governed city in which you have a mayor chosen by public vote, or a council chosen by any other vote at all. I challenge the gen- tlemen to give a single instance either in this country or in any other country in the civilized world where our present plan is successfully operating, where the citizens of the community have a well-governed city. There are none t< be found. This is a novel proposition. It has been tried for fifty years in the large American cities, and as the result of fifty years ’ experience we have what Mr. Bryce calls a municipal government that is a weak spot in American po- litical institutions. This is not a record to be proud of, but it is a record to be ashamed of. The doctrine of the fathers, to which Mr. McCormick al- luded to in his historical discussion, the doctrine of the fathers are the customr of the days of George Washington. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Frank lin; that was the only system they knew anything about. Why did they give it up? Not because it had been tried and found wanting, not becausr there were weak spots in that; it was tried, and it was abandoned because o the fact that the cities began to imitate the national government. Old Andrew Jackson, commonly known as King An- drew in his day, was victorious over the legislature, and shortly after his victory, which aroused public spirit in every state in this country they pro- ceeded to provide for popular election of government; the original plan was just the government of the legislature, but many of the states tried this plan November 30 71 1906 in municipal matters. The scheme wa not abandoned because of failure, bu' simply because every place, every vil lage imitated those things, and the trouble was that the national form of government would not fit the little places. They tried the anology, and it would not do. Now with regard to the proposition as Mr. Fisher has advocated it. So far as the business of the worlc is concerned, we have no corporation in the United States that chooses its officers. They elect boards of di- rectors and the boards of directors choose the president; the president fol- lows the policy of the corporation, which the directors pass upon, and the president chosen by the board of di- rectors administers and carries out the policy that they have decided upon. Now of course they are influenced by his judgment, and they are guided by him to a large extent, but the question of determining the outlines of the cor- poration ’s policy is determined by the board of directors. The city is a big business corporation. Now the func- tion of a mayor, as has been stated, is an administration of the government. He is presumed to be and he ought to be a legislator, an expert in legislation and in administration. The function of the mayor is the same function as the president of a railroad company. The administration policy has been de- cided upon. That has been shown in this city; we have been frequently em- barrassed by the fact that we choose between two things. He was a poor administrator, but understood well the question of public policy, stood well on that question, or he was not on the popular side of the general question, and at the same time an expert ad- ministrator. I think it is at least worthy of careful consideration from the members of this Convention, and they should know the true position in- volved in this scheme we are now trying, and that the scheme we are now trying is invalid. It has been shown to be a failure, and the funda- mental principle of city government is the separation of the legislative from the administrative function. ME. POST: If I may be permitted, I wish to renew my motion. It seems to me the discussion here this after- noon is sufficient argument in favor of the motion, that we should not be driven to decide so important a question at this particular meeting. My motion is that this whole subject be made a special order for a special day. THE CHAIEMAN: Any second to that motion? MR. JONES: I second that motion. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the ob jection to continuing the discussion and renewing your motion at the end of it? MR. POST: I have no objection, if you will adopt my motion. I have t keep an appointment at four o’clock, and I don’t want to stay here. MR. RE YELL: May I ask this, what is to be gained by this attitude on his part? We have been discussing thir question, and it has been discussed very intelligently by the various men whe have spoken, and I think his motion i rather a reflection upon what has al- ready taken place. It seems to me that there may be others who wish to speak upon the question; we should get right at it, we should do something here. We should carry this to six o’clock, if anyone be ready to vote. If we are going to adjourn this thing to another day, are we going over this thing, all these matters that we hav r gone over this afternoon, again? W< have come here because we thought there would be a large number of the members of the Convention present. Now let us get down to business. W meet again upon Monday or Tuesday and go over the same thing again; if we keep on deferring and deferring wo will not be ready for the legislature when it meets. November 30 72 1906 ME. POST: I want to get down tf business, and I have been getting dowr to business for. ten months, while some gentlemen were out in the country or iu Europe, and not down to business, not attending to the business of this Con- vention. Some of us have been attend- ing to the business of this Convention. We couldn’t get quorums, we could not make any headway, perhaps; now, after all that, I don’t think you can push this thing like this, to a finish. I have no objection to the debate going on, but I do object to pushing it to a final vote. THE CHAIBMAN : This is not a final vote. The chairman will consider for the purposes of your motion that it is to defer the further discussion or debate on the subject. ME. POST: No, I don’t want to ir terfere with the debate at all; I wish to defer the vote. THE CHAIEMAN : Will you put it in form, frame your motion? ME. POST: My motion is, I make e motion that the consideration of this subject, the subject under discussion, be continued, but not voted upon. THE CHAIEMAN: Mr. Shanahan made a motion that the second alter- native there to No. 3 be laid upon the table. Your motion now is that no vote be taken on the subject, but that the entire matter be deferred to a day specially set for that purpose. ME. POST: That was tfiy motion; I don’t care for the particular form ot the motion. What I want is simply to postpone the vote upon the question and at the same time hold the right of discussion open. THE CHAIEMAN: If you will make your motion so that I can have it ac- curately — ME. POST: I move that no — I will put it in the old form; I move that it be made a special order for a particula day. ME. BENNETT: As I understood it when we entered upon this discussion, the discussion of this proposition, it was with the idea there would be no definite action taken to-day. Am I cor- rect? THE CHAIEMAN: There was nc definite plan adopted by the Conven- tion; but Mr. Post’s motion was lef' open during the discussion. Mr. Post’s motion as a substitute comes in pro- perly at the time Mr. Shanahan’s mo- tion is put. ME. BENNETT: What is Mr. Shana- han’s motion? THE CHAIEMAN: If Mr. Shanahan wants to renew his motion at this time your substitute would then be in order. ME. POST: I might be willing to ac- cept it. ME. SHANAHAN: My motion was that alternative No. 3 be laid on the table. THE CHAIEMAN: Upon this motion this discussion has been had; you offer this as a substitute for the other? ME. POST: No, I offer the motion itself. ME. WEBNO: I rise to a point of order. The motion originally was to lay this question upon the table, and this discussion was then had. THE CHAIEMAN:- We will try to keep this as far from school parlia- mentary practice as possible so as to give the fullest measure and oppor- tunity for discussion. ME. BADENOCH: I understood that Mr. Shanahan’s motion to lay upon the table was withdrawn out of courtesy to Alderman Bennett, who wished to speak on the subject; so that until he renews that motion it is not before the Convention. I must say I have come to the conclusion from the talks on the previous question that it would be en- tirely unwise to hasten a vote on this subject to come before the Convention in relation to the chief magistrate of the city. I think it would be very wise, November 30 73 1906 now that this discussion has been had to this point, that no attempt be made at this time until we can have a further opportunity to make a special matter of it. I very strenuously favor the suggestion of Mr. Post, before taking a final vote we shall have further dis- cussion on the subject. MR. HILL: In about five weeks ’ time the legislature will begin its work, and this subject will all come up to them; it has got to be understood by those who will be asked to vote upon it. There are undoubtedly many other points in this matter that are as im- portant as this, and each time we come to one of these we are going to meet this sort of delay, and the result will be we won’t get down there until the General Assembly has adjourned, and we will have to wait for two years more. Now we all are business men, we all have business to attend to; we have laid that aside to come here to discuss and hear discussed these propositions. It seems to me we should go at this methodically, and when these questions come up we should consider them, and this Convention should decide what it is going to do upon those questions and vote upon them. You put this over a week and there is one more week gone. There are probably half a dozn other things as important as this, and this should not be put over again. We have a large attendance here to-day, probably larger that we will have again. Now we will have to explain this thoroughly to the members of the legislature, and many of them are country members, and we will have to instruct every one of them, and all those matters, and if you wait until the legislature is done you won ’t get anything done. MR. JONES: I seconded Mr. Post’s motion because I believed that at this first meeting at any rate, we would not get to a vote on this proposition. I have no doubt that others have had thoughts suggested to them by the dis- cussion here that they would like to re- fresh their mind on. For instance, I have a faint recollection that the pro- position of having the mayor elected by the city council was in one of the former city charters of Chicago. In that case I would like to investigate that and ascertain why it was dis- carded and the present plan adopted. I would like to make further investi- gation of the matter. I believe it is unwise to give the Convention any ques- tions of importance on the same day in which they are discussed, because I believe that if we produce a charter here that is merely a makeshift mea- sure, when you get down to Springfield the legislature will say they have no respect for the deliberations of this body. MR. HOYNE: As a member of this Convention who has attended to busi- ness in town every day, I am anxious for business, but I am in favor of Mr, Post ’s motion to this extent, that an hour be set and named on Monday when a vote will be taken, and I think we can get down to business, and if we care to adopt that measure or any other proposition we will then get down to business and get some action. MR. POST: I am willing to accept that to this extent, if we can adjourn to some hour certain. MR. SHANAHAN: I desire to say to the Convention that I made this mo- tion to bring the matter before the Convention. Mr. Hill has practically said what I intended to say, that the legislature will convene in five weeks, about, and that it will take about two weeks of the law committee’s time to draft this charter after this Convention has passed upon it. That gives this Convention three weeks to work. Now if they had met two weeks ago and talked for an hour or an hour and a half at a time, and if they had wanted to “go over until the next day” the Charter Convention would have had November 30 74 1906 nothing for its three week’s time. I am surprised that any member of this Convention is not now prepared to vote upon every proposition that is presented to this Convention. You have been members of the Convention for twelve months, and you have attended to various committee meetings, and you have had a draft of these resolutions in your possession five or six days; I want to ask you what you have done? If you have not read them in the last five or six days you won’t in the next five or six days. If we put this matter over until Monday when we meet then someone will say then, “This is a very important matter, it should not be voted on at this time; we ought to have time to consider it. ’ ’ The time for con- sideration is past; now is the time to act. ME. THOMPSON: I believe we should vote on this matter. I don’t be- lieve there are many here that want the city council to elect our mayor. I will tell you how I am going to vote on this proposition; I am going to vote “No,” because the only way to get popular government is to do the way we do. THE CHAIEMAN: The question is upon Mr. Post’s motion to defer thr taking of a vote upon this question until some future day, and upon that the secretary will now call the roll. ME. WEENO: That leaves it in too indefinite shape. I suggest to Mr. Post that it be that the further consideration of this matter be postponed until the next regular meeting of this convention, which may be next Monday at two o ’clock. THE CHAIEMAN: That the further consideration of this matter be deferred until the next regular meeting. The Secretary will call the roll. The Secretary called the roll: Yeas — Badenoch, Beilfuss, Dever, Fisher, Guerin, Hovne, Jones, Merriam, Owens, Pendarvis, Post, Eobins, Bosen- thal— 13. Nays — Beebe, Brown, Burke, Clet- tenberg, Cole, Crilly, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eid- mann, Erickson, Gansbergen, Hill, Kit- tleman, Lathrop, Linehan, MacMillan, MacCormick, McKinley, O’Donnell, Powers, Baymer, Bevell, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Sunny, Swift, Thompson Yopicka, Werno, White, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 37. THE CHAIEMAN: 13 yeas; 37 nays. The motion is lost. The question now reverts to Mr. Shanahan’s motion to place the second alternative on the table. The Secretary will call the roll. The Secretary called the roll: Yeas — Beebe, Beilfuss, Brown, Burke, Clettenberg, Cole, Dever, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eid- mann, Erickson, Gansbergen, Hill, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, MacMil- lan, McCormick McKinley, O’Donnell, Owens, Pendarvis, Powers, Bevell, Eob- ins, Eosenthal, Shanahan, Shedd, Shep- ard, Smulski, Snow, Sunny, Swift, Thompson, Yopicka, White, Wilkins, Young — 40. Nays — Badenoch, Fisher, Guerin, Hoync, Merriam, Post, Eaymer, Werno — 8 . THE CHAIEMAN: Yeas, 40; nays, 8. Carried. The Secretary will now read the first alternative to No. 3. The Secretary read it as presented. ME. FISHEE: Gentlemen: I don’t want to repeat what I have said to this Convention. I have appreciated for some time that it would take some dis- cussion probably to have the members of this Convention appreciate the real necessities of efficient government of the city as set out in the provision which has been laid on the table, and I have felt that that difficulty would be due to two things, and I should judge from the discussion we have had here that that anticipation was justified, namely, that members of the Convention November 30 75 1906 and the people would hesitate to put the election of the executive officer in the hands of the legislative body or council. That seems to them to be an innovation, although as Prof Merriam has pointed out, it is precisely the re- verse; and consequently they would hes- itate to take away from some person elected by the body of the people the power to veto legislation. There are the two principal objections that have been urged to the resolution which has has been laid upon the table just now, and they are as I have stated; first, that the people wish to elect the executive officer. They do not wish to have him elected by the legislative body; not yet realizing perhaps that only in that way can they get an execu- tive who should be the real responsible one; and second, that they wish some- body who can regulate the whole body of the people, who can be elected upon a single issue, who can represent the legislative body as a whole, who will exercise that function. This first al- ternative to No. 3 is intended to meet both of those objections. The whole proposition of that alternative is to get rid of a situation in which it is impos- sible to get good efficient government in this city. ME. YOPICKA: I have heard this afternoon from Mr. Fisher that we should elect as good a man as we pos- sibly can, and then he advocates the election of two mayors, one who would be the mayor and the other a figure- head. The argument which I heard here before with reference to some cities in Europe is out of place. We cannot com- pare our situation with the European situation. In Europe, in the first place, only those people vote at municipal elections who pay certain taxes. And they are the people who will select only those who are in favor of the things they want. Now if we shall elect a mayor let us elect a mayor who shall have some rights, the same rights which he has at the present time. MR. BADENOCH: No one can tell me that the chief executive of Chicago could be familiar with the laws and the code of this great city without giving a large portion of his time to consider- ing new legislation. To be sure, in the course of administration, new legislation would be wise, and it would be his duty to present them to the City Coun- cil. It has been said that a munici- pality is practically and in the main a large corporation; no business corpora- tion submits the election of its presi- dent to the stockholders; the general practice is that the board of directors who have become familiar with the government and know the requirements of the corporation, are better fitted to select the president than the stockhold- ers, who possibly are not familiar with the details of the business. So it is with the city government. The man at the head of the government should be one who is familiar with the busi- ness of governing this city. In the city we have the great public works, the great water system, the great sewer system, and special drainage, and all that, and we want a man who can min- ister successfully and who can give his whole time to the city and those departments, and who can give his time to familiarizing himself with them. I believe the members of this council — there are many of them who have been in the past nine years doing serv- ice here — and who have become familiar with the workings of things, and with the government of this city, I believe they will agree with me that we would be better fitted and qualified to select a man to take charge of the city’s interests than those who are not famil- iar with those matters. ME. SHANAHAN: I would like to ask the Alderman a question: Don’t you think that the same thing would be accomplished if the members of the November 30 76 1906 City Council elected one of their own members to preside over the council? MR. BADENOCH: The idea is that the mayor should be relieved of this responsibility of presiding. MR. SHANAHAN: Wouldn't the same thing be accomplished if the coun- cil elected one of its own members, and not add another official? MR. THOMPSON: I don't believe that the people of Chicago want to re- lieve their mayor of the privilege of presiding, because I believe that priv- ilege, that power, and that authority, during the last ten years has saved the City of Chicago from a great deal of trouble. It has saved us in the case of the street cars, and will probably save us on the telephone franchises. I don't see that any great responsibility is placed upon the mayor. I notice that occasionally the mayor of our city takes a trip to Michigan or California or somewhere else, and I also notice that during the summer there is a lot of time during which nothing is done by the council or the mayor. It seems to me that the people want a rsponsible head for their government. They do not want two of them. They do not want the situation mixed up. They want one man, and that should be the mayor, and not any figurehead. Now the mayor of the City of Chicago is a man that the people all can reach, and if you put two men at the head of the city government you have got things mixed up, and the first thing that you know the corporations, the street car companies, and the telephone companies and the others will walk away with everything you have in the city. I don't think it is fair to compare the City of Chicago to a business corpora- tion, and that they should be run as another corporation, like an insurance company, and a lot of others that are a disgrace to the country. You don't want to run Chicago like some of those corporations. The mayor of the City of Chicago ought to be the chairman of the City Council, and he ought to have the veto power with a provision that two-thirds of the members of the coun- cil can over-ride him, and he ought to be present when all these franchises are discussed. I believe myself that the people want a responsible head to the government, — one that they can reach and go to at any time and make known their ideas with reference to these fran- chises and other matters. MR. ROBINS: I would like to make a suggestion, and that is, that the mem- bers of this Convention shall not finally vote on any matter relating to this sub- ject of the mayor and any other sub- ject to be taken up to-day, until the next meeting of the Convention. I think the action of the members of the Convention at the present time is not one which they wish to consider as final, — I am not speaking for myself, as I am ready to vote on any of these propositions at this time, but I did hap- pen to confer with several members of the Convention during the past week, and when we discussed this matter, it was generally supposed that all which would transpire this afternoon was that the Convention would meet, adopt this report, and then take some part of the report and make a special order of it for the next meeting. While the dis- cussion is all right, I would like to urge that in order to get a fair hearing and to give the members an opportu- nity to vote on this important matter of the functions and elections of the mayor of the City of Chicago, that we defer final action until the next meet- ing, and I will move that this Conven- tion adjourn to meet at two o'clock on Monday, and that the article covering the matter of mayor be the special or- der for that meeting. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion. Before that motion is put, and in the event it should November 30 77 1906 be carried, the Chair desires to report that the Committee on Public Utilities, the Committee on Municipal Expendi- tures and Accounting, Committee on Municipal Courts have reported, and the Committee on Municipal Parks and Public Grounds have put in a supple- mental report. Printed copies of these reports will be sent to the different members of the Convention. Report of Committee on Public Utili- ties. — Charles Wemo, chairman. Chicago Charter Convention : Gentle- men — In making this report it is done with the provision that the particular sections of the report to which this com- mittee is committed are sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and that the remaining sections are recommended as being in the opin- ion of the committee put into the char- ter from motives of general public pol- icy, but that the committee leave that question for the determination of the Convention as a whole upon a discussion of the general framework of the char- ter to be adopted. That is, in other words, — we are not insisting upon the remaining sections. 1. The City of Chicago shall have full power and authority to own, maintain and operate within the limits of said City, street, railways, subways, water works, telephone, telegraph, gas and electric lighting and power plants and other public utility works, and equip- ment for the use of said City and the property therein and the inhabitants thereof and to fix the rates and charges for the services rendered by such pub- lic utilities, and for this purpose to ac- quire by purchase, construction, con- demnation or otherwise whatever prop- erty real or personal, may be necessary or appropriate, and to lease the same to any person, firm or corporation auth- orized under the laws of the state to operate the same, for the purpose of operating the same for any period not longer than twenty (20) years, upon such terms and conditions as the City Council shall deem for the best interests of the public. 2. No person, firm or corporation shall have the right to locate, construct, main- tain or operate any such public utility of any kind or description, in, over, un- der, upon or along the public streets, alleys or grounds of the said City of Chicago, without the consent of the cor- porate authorities of the said City of Chicago, which consent may be granted for any period not longer than twenty (20) years, upon such terms and condi- tions as such corporate authorities shall deem for the best interests of the pub- lic. Provided, no such consent shall be granted except upon the condition that the person, firm or corporation to which such consent is given will pay all dam- ages to owners of property abutting upon the street, alley or public ground in, over, under, upon or along which said public utilities are to be constructed, which they may sustain by reason of the location, construction or operation of the same, such damages to be ascertained and paid in the manner provided by law for the exercise of the right of eminent domain ; and no such consent for a longer period than five (5) years shall go into effect until ninety (90) days af- ter the passage of the ordinance there- for by the City Council, and if, within such ninety (90) days, there shall be filed with the City Clerk of said City a petition signed by fifteen (15) per cent, of the registered voters of the said City, requesting that the granting of such consent be submitted to popular vote, such consent shall not be effective until the question of the granting there- of shall first have been submitted to a popular vote at a general election in said city, and be approved by a majority ot those voting thereon. 3. Every such grant shall be subject to the right of the corporate authorities of said City to control the use, improve- ment and repair of such street, alley or November 30 78 1906 public ground, to the same extent as if no such grant had been made, and to make all necessary or proper police reg- ulations concerning the location, con- struction, maintenance, use and opera- tion of the property or structure thereby permitted, whether such right is reserved in the grant or not, and the right to make such regulations shall include the right to make reasonable regulations of the charges for service to be rendered to the public by any such person, firm or corporation. 4. The City Council shall have the power to require any person, firm or corporation owning, managing or oper- ating public utilities within the limits of said City to make properly vertified reports to the said City, of the char- acter and amount of business done by such person, firm or corporation, includ- in the amount of receipts from and the expense of conducting the said business, and the duly authorized agents of the said City shall have the right at all reasonable times to examine the books of account and records of every such person, firm or corporation which relate to the conduct of such business. 5. It shall be lawful for the said City to incorporate in any such public utility grant a reservation of the right on the part of such City to take over all or any part of the property, plant or equipment used in the operation of such public utility, at or before the expiration of such grant, upon such terms and condi- tions as may be provided in the grant. And it shall also be lawful to provide in any such grant that in case such re- served right be not exercised by the City, and it shall grant a right to another person, firm or corporation to operate such public utility in the streets and parts of streets occupied by its grantee, under the former grant, the new grantee shall purchase and take over the property located in such streets and parts of streets upon the terms that the City might have taken it over. 6. The said City shall not itself pro- ceed to operate any such public utility (except water-works) for the use or ben- efit of private consumers or users for hire or charges for such consumption or use and shall not lease for a longer period than five years the property ac- quired by it for or in connection with any such public utility, nor renew any lease thereof unless and until the prop- osition to so operate or to make or renew such lease shall first have been sub- mitted to the electors of said City and approved by a majority of those voting thereon. 7. Fgr the purpose of acquiring any such public utilities or the property nec- essary or appropriate for the operation thereof, either by purchase or construc- tion, the said City may borrow money and issue negotiable bonds therefor, pledging the faith and credit of the City; but no such bonds shall be issued unless and until the proposition to issue the same shall first have been submitted to the electors of said City and approved by two-thirds (2-3) of those voting thereon. In lieu of issuing bonds pledging the faith and credit of the City, the said City may issue and dispose of interest- bearing certificates, which shall under no circumstances be or become an obliga- tion or liability of the City, or payable out of any general fund thereof, bu£ shall be payable solely out of the rev- enues or income to be derived from the operation of the public utility for the acquisition of which they were issued. In order to secure the payment of any such 1 1 public-utility certificates, ’ ’ and the interest thereon, the City may con- vey by way of mortgage or deed of trust any or all of the public utility property acquired or to be acquired through the issue thereof, which mortgage or deed of trust shall be executed in such man- ner as may be directed by the City Coun- cil and acknowledged ancl recorded in the manner provided by law for the November 30 79 1906 acknowledgment and recording of mort- gages of real estate, and may contain such provisions and conditions, not in conflict with the provisions of this act, as may be deemed necessary to fully secure the payment of the certificates described therein. Any such mortgage or deed of trust may carry the grant of a privilege or right to maintain and operate the prop- erty covered thereby for a period not exceeding twenty (20) years from and after the date such property may come into the possession of any person or corporation as the result of foreclosure proceedings, which privilege or right shall fix the terms and conditions, in- cluding the rates of fare, which the per- son or corporation securing the same as the result of foreclosure proceedings shall be entitled to charge in the oper- ation of said property, for such period not exceeding twenty (20) years; but the City Council shall at all times have the right to make all reasonable regula- tions of the rates of fare to be charged in the operation of said property and of the manner in which the same is main- tained or operated. Whenever and as often as default shall be made in the payment of any public-utility certificates issued and se- cured by mortgage or deed of trust as aforesaid, or in the payment of the in- terest thereon when due, and any such default shall have continued for the space of twelve (12) months after no- tice thereof has been given to the Mayor and financial officer of the City issuing such certificates, it shall be lawful for any such mortgagee or trustee, upon the request of the holder or holders of a majority in amount of the certificates issued and outstanding under said mort- gage or deed of trust, to declare the whole or the principal of all such cer- tificates as may be outstanding to be at once due and payable and to proceed to foreclose such mortgage or deed of trust in any court of competent jurisdiction. At a foreclosure sale the mortgagee or the holders of such certificates may become the purchaser or purchasers of the property and the rights and orivi- leges sold, if he or they be the highest bidders. Provided , however, that no street rail- way certificates shall be issued unless and until the proposition to issue the same shall first have been submitted to a popular vote and approved by a ma- jority of the qualified voters of the city voting upon such question. 8. The said City shall keep the books of account for each such public utility owned or operated by it distinct from other city accounts and in such manner as to show the true and complete finan- cial results of such city ownership or ownership and operation, as the case may be. Such accounts shall be so kept as to show the actual cost to the City of each such public utility owned, all costs of maintenance, extension and improve- ment, all operating expenses of every description in case of such city opera- tion, the amounts set aside for sinking fund purposes; if water or other service shall be furnished for the use of such public utility, without charge, the ac- counts shall show as nearly as possi- ble the value of such service, and also the value of such similar service ren- dered by each such public utility to any other city department, without charge. Such accounts shall also show reason- able allowance for interest, depreciation and insurance, and also estimates of the amount of taxes that would be charge- able against such property if owned by a private corporation. The City Council shall cause to be printed annually for public iistnbution a report showing the financial results, jn form as aforesaid, of such ownership or ownership and operation, as the case may be. The accounts of each such public util- ity kept as aforesaid shall be examined at least once a year by an expert ac- November 30 80 1906 countant, who shall report to the City Council may direct, and he shall receive for his service such compensation to be paid out of the income or revenues from the particular public utilities, the ac- counts of which he is employed to ex- amine, as the City Council may pre- scribe. 9. All existing laws requiring front- age consents as a condition to the mak- ing of any public utility grant to any person, firm or corporation shall be and they are hereby repealed, so far as the same relate to the City of Chicago, and the City Council of said City is hereby authorized to provide by ordin- ance from time to time such require- ments with regard to frontage consents in such cases as the City Council may deem proper. Respectfully submitted, Charles Werner, Chairman. Report of Committee on Municipal Expenditures and Accounting. — Frank j J. Bennett, chairman. Chicago Charter Convention, ' Gentle- men: Your Committee on Municipal Expenditures and Accounting, begs leave to report that it has taken up and con- sidered the subject submitted to it and has reached the conclusion that Munici- pal Expenditures and Accounting come more properly within the sphere of Council legislation and that the Munici- pality subject to existing laws, should be left free to deal with and control the expenditure of Municipal Funds and I to regulate, as it now does its own ac- counts. Respectfully submitted, Frank I. Bennett, Chairman. Report of Committee on Municipal Courts. — John F. Smulski, chairman. Chicago Charter Convention, Gentle- men: Your Committee on Municipal Courts begs leave to report that in view of the fact that the new municipal court law has had no opportunity to be tried and tested this committee recommend that no changes be made in the same, — with this provision : that after thirty days of operation of the new municipal courts the chief justice and associate justices be requested to send in their recommendations as to what changes they may deem advisable to submit dur- ing the next session of the general as- sembly. The Committee also recommends, for consideration: That Section 10 of the act creating the Municipal Court be amended so as to provide that no person shall be eligible to the office of Chief Justice or of Associate Judge of the Municipal Court unless he shall be at least thirty years of age and a citizen of the United States, nor unless he shall have resided in the County of Cook and been there engaged, either in active practice as an attorney and counsellor at law or in the discharge of the duties of a judicial officer, five years next preceding his election, or in one of said occupations during a portion of said time and in the other the remaining por- tion thereof, and shall, at the time of his election, be a resident of the City of Chicago and duly licensed to practice as an attorney and Counsellor at law in this state. Respectfully submitted, John F. Smulski, Chairman. Report of Committee on Municipal Parks and Public Grounds. — Bryan Lathrop, chairman. Chicago Charter Convention, Gentle- men: Your committee on Municipal Parks and Public Grounds begs leave to submit the following supplemental re- port, adopted unanimously at a meeting of the committee held November 26, 1906: It is the sense of the committee that Section 3 printed in the Proceedings of October 3, at Page 24, be amended to read as follows after the words Nine November 30 81 1906 Park Commissioners : Three from the South Side, three from the West Side and three from the North Side; three of whom shall be appointed for a term of two years, three for a term of four years and three for a term of six years. At the expiration of the term of any member of the said board of park com- missioners, his successor shall be ap- pointed in like manner and shall hold his office for the term of six years. Any vacancy which may occur shall be filled by appointment of the judges of the said court, for the unexpired term. It is the sense of the committee that section 8 of the proceedings of October 3, at page 25, be amended to read as fol- lows: After the words “ Powers, Eights and Duties’’ in the fifth line, and the follow- ing words: “ Except the right to levy taxes or create any indebtedness against the City of Chicago. ’ ’ It is the sense of the committee that paragraph 3 of section 6 in the proceed- ings of October 3rd at page 4 be amend- ed so that it shall read: Said Board shall have power to ap- point officers and hire such employes as may be necessary to the efficient perform- ance of the duties of said Park Board, and to fix their compensation. The Park Board is hereby authorized to es- tablish a civil service in the park sys- tem, by choosing from among its com- missioners three to act as civil service commissioners. All appointments to be made subject to the rules and regula- tions which such commission shall adopt. Respectfully submitted, BRYAN LATHROP, Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Now, gentle- men, you have heard the motion of Mr. Robins, that this convention adjourn to meet Monday afternoon at 2 o’clock. MR. BADENOCH : I move to substi- tute Tuesday for Monday. I think there are several members of the City Council who have important meetings to attend Monday afternoon. THE CHAIRMAN : The chair would suggest that it would be a very diffi- cult matter to select a day when some of the members of the convention have not got some other things on hand. MR. BADENOCH: The telephone question is an important question, and that committee meets on Monday. THE CHAIRMAN: It has been suggested that this convention might meet on Monday at 2 o’clock and also on Tuesday at 2 o’clock. It occurs to me that with two days of steady work we might accomplish a great deal. The suggestion is that the next two meetings be on Monday at 2 o’clock and Tuesday at 2 o ’clock. Are you ready for the question ? THE CHAIRMAN: The discussion will proceed. MR. McCORMICK: I make a mo- tion that alternative three be placed on the table. First alternative to number three. THE CHAIRMAN : The motion is that the first alternative to number three be laid on the table. Is there a roll call requested upon that? The secre- tary will call the roll. I think it is wise to adopt the rule to have a roll call on everything. Yeas — Beebe, Beilfuss, Burke, Cril- ly, Dever, Dixon, G. W. ; Eckhart, B. A.; Eckhart, J. W. ; Eidmann, Erickson, Gansbergen, Guerin, Hoyne, Jones, Kit- tleman, Lathrop, Linehan, MacMillan, McCormick, McKinley, O ’Donnell, Owens Pendarvis, Powers, Revell, Robins, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Smulski, Sunny, Swift, Thompson, Yopicka, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 37. Nays — Badenoch, Bennett, Brown, Fisher, Hill, Merriam, Raymer, Rosen- thal, Snow, Werno — 10. THE CHAIRMAN : The motion to table is carried. November 30 82 1906 MR. McCORMICK: I hope the con- vention will see fit to finish with the of- fice of mayor at this meeting, and for the purpose of starting the discussion among the members, I will move that the first alternative to number two be adopt- ed. That the mayor shall not preside over the City Council, but the City Coun- cil shall elect its own presiding officer from its members. MR. FISHER: It seems to me that we will proceed in a much more orderly fashion if we start at the beginning and go down the line. That refers simply to his executive functions. The other questions are still open for debate. These original propositions are formed so that any member can offer an amendment if he sees fit. MR. McCORMICK: I move that the first alternative to 2 be adopted. THE CHAIRMAN: The convention has adopted a rule to start with the last suggestion and not with the first. MR. FISHER: I think the chair mis- understood that motion. It will certain- ly lead to confusion if that is done. The motion, as I understood it, was that, wffiere there was more than one alterna- tive, we should begin with the last alter- native. Now that is disposed of, the first proposition is again opened. The first proposition, I suppose, is one upon which there is little discussion. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no ob- jection, the secretary will read from the beginning of section 3. THS SECHETARY READ: 1. The charter shall continue substantially the provisions of the present laws regarding the qualifications and executive functions of the mayor. THE CHAIRMAN : Is there any dis- cussion upon that proposition? MR. BENNETT: In connection with that section, I would like to offer a res- olution. The Secretary read: By Mr. Bennett — Resolved, that it is the sense of this con- vention that a clause be inserted in the charter designating a city official who shall act as mayor during the absence or inability of the mayor. MR. BENNETT: I offer that, Mr. Chairman, at this time, because the adop- tion of section 1 would fix the duties of the mayor, and I offer this resolution for the reason that the present charter pro- vides that the Council may, during the absence of the mayor, appoint an. execu- tive to act in his stead. But the Coun- cil doesn’t know when he is going away, and the result has been from time to time some official of the city government has been illegally deputized to act in his stead, and I think it will be well to clear it up in this charter, and the charter will definitely provide that when the mayor leaves the city, that there is some one here to act in his stead. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the resolution. The secretary will read it again : The secretary read the resolution as above. MR. HOYNE: I would like to ask who is to designate? MR. BENNETT: I purposely left that to the wisdom of the committee. Let them make a recommendation to the convention to act upon. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, there shall be an officer designated. Do you move its adoption, Mr. Bennett? MR. BENNETT : Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any dis- cussion on the question? THE CHAIRMAN: It is so ordered, unless somebody wants a roll call. The next matter to come before the conven- tion is the first paragraph of section 3. MR. McCORMICK : I move its adop- tion, Mr. Chairman. MR. McCORMICK: Now, I would like to move the adoption of the first or second alternative. I don’t care which. MR. SHANAHAN : The second one. THE CHAIRMAN: The second alter- native to 2. The secretary will read that. November 30 83 1906 The Secretary read: The charter shall continue the present provisions of the law regarding the relation of the mayor to the City Council, except that he shall not preside at the meetings of the City Council, but the City Council shall elect its own presiding officer from its members. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion has been made to adopt that clause. MR. THOMPSON: Which one? Number 2? MR. SNOW : Is there a motion made to adopt the second alternative? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MR. SNOW : If this is adopted, it doesn’t define what the relations of the presiding officer shall be to the body. It simply provides that the mayor shall not preside, but it leaves in the hands of the mayor the veto power, instead of placing that in the hands of the presid- ing officer. Is that the purpose of the amendment? MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of the second alter- native. MR. SNOW : Where will you lodge the veto power? MR. McCORMICK: In the mayor, where it is now. It reads. (Repeats al- ternative as printed above.) MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Snow has the floor. MR. SNOW: Under the present pro- visions the mayor is a member of the City Council. Now you are going to continue him as a member of the City Council and at the same time give him the veto power. He shall be entitled to a vote as at the present time, and then he shall be entitled to veto the legislation. THE CHAIRMAN: Let me suggest, Mr. Snow, that if you will refer to the first two sections of paragraph 3, the sec- ond alternative qualifies that by provid- ing that the City Council shall elect a presiding officer from among its mem- bers and then alternative to number 3 provides that the veto power shall be as now prescribed by law. MR. SNOW : We have adopted sec- tion 1 of number 3 and that provides that the qualifications and executive powers shall remain as they are now. THE CHAIRMAN: Number 2 cov- ers the question by saying that his rela- tions to the City Council shall be the same as they are now. MR. SNOW: Number 2 has not been debated yet. Here there is an alterna- tive presented and that takes cognizance o'f the fact that the mayor is a member of the City Council, and he shall have a deciding vote in the case of a tie, and that the veto powers are lodged in the mayor. Now the only change that you make is that he doesn’t occupy the seat our chairman has now. You are not sep- arating the legislative from the execu- tive functions at all by the adoption of this clause. MR. THOMPSON: I believe in the present system, Mr. Chairman, I know of no reason why we should adopt this sub- stitute. MR. O’DONNELL: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the question before the house now is the debate of this sec- tion of the report which authorizes the council to elect its own presiding officer. Am I right? THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct, sir. MR. O’DONNELL: The most dan- gerous member of the City Council, or the legislature, or of congress, is the presiding officer, and some of v you will agree with me in our local meetings here that a very dangerous man is the pre- siding officer. We have had occasion twice at Springfield to drag the presid- ing officer from the chair. Now to allow our City Council, patriotic and all as they are — lovers of Chicago and its people as they all are — to allow them to select one of their number, one that the people have not passed upon his qualifications, his ca- pacity, his integrity, his fairness, is not November 30 84 1906 what I would want to see in the City of Chicago. He is not responsible to the people. He would be responsible wholly to a clique of the council, or to some designing part of the council. Let us have the presiding officer elected by the people, responsible to the people, if you wish well by the people, and if you want this council to obey the mandate of the people. Now it is known that there are some men that have been in this council who have been determined public ene- mies from the time they came to the coun- cil until the moment they left it. Those men are not the men to select the pre- siding officer. I still have faith in the people of Chicago. They will do right if they are given the opportunity. Here is a responsible head that the people can name, and if they do, you and they will be better satisfied. Now we can only judge the future by the past. The presid- ing officer for the past has been a very dangerous man, and if he is not such a man as can be reached directly by the votes of the sovereign people he is doubly dangerous, and I sincerely trust that this convention will vote down this proposi- tion, I will vote No on it. MR. McCORMICK: Inasmuch as I made the motion to adopt the second al- ternative, perhaps I should speak in favor of my motion. I was unwilling to vote for the other two propositions for the reasons I then stated. I do think, however, that some improvement can be made in the relationship of the City Council to the administration. Un- der the present conditions, we all admit, the administration is too much the City Council and the aldermen are too much the administration. Some law that will provide an improvement should be adopted. The City Council should be homogeneous with itself. It cannot work to the best efficiency if the presiding of- ficer is different from it. Aldermen on the floor of this council within the last few years have felt at times that they are not in entire harmony with the chair- man and friction arose. The chairman of the council should be the servant of the council. The chairman is provided in order to give expression in an orderly way to the desires of the council, and for that reason it is desirable that he should be subject to it, and not independ- ent. It has been very well argued by members of this convention that the mayor should have as much time as pos- sible to devote to the executive func- tions. When he presides over the coun- cil he gives not only the Monday night, but considerable time during the week, in order to be up to date on all the ques- tions before the council. The time at his disposal for executive work is limited. It is with these ideas in mind, Mr. Chair- man, that I moved the adoption of sub- stitute number 2. MR. DEVER: I understand from the remarks that have been made here by several members that the only purpose of this paragraph was to take from the mayor the right which he has now under the law to preside over the meetings of the City Council. It has nothing to do with the veto power. I have failed to learn from any one that the fact that the mayor presides over the council has caused any difficulty or abuse of that power. It is the one thing that stands out clearly. In the last twenty years I have never heard anything against the fairness of the mayor in conducting the meetings of the council, nor during the five years that I have been in the council has anything been shown on that point. I think now that the chief officer of the city presiding at the meetings of the council adds dignity to the proceedings and they are more thoughtful and or- derly, and none of the mayors have ever attempted in the slightest degree to en- croach upon the prerogatives of the mem- bers of the City Council, on any occa- sion that I have ever heard of and seen, and 1 have tried to find some good rea- son why we should change a law that has been entirely satisfactory so far as November 30 85 1906 I have been able to find out. He is re- sponsible to the City of Chicago, and he conducts his office with dignity and fair- ness. I think it will be a great mistake to change the system under which we are now working. We don’t know what the result of that change will be. We may have a man presiding over us who may not express the popular will, but the mayor by his election by the people, does personify at least what the people want during his term of office. I can- not see, and I would like to hear some one good reason why this change should be made. MR. CRILLY : It appears that we want to provide a presiding officer for the council to act in the absence of the mayor — why not leave it as it is? Leave it to the City Council to fill that office when the mayor is absent. It seems to me that would cover it. MR. DEYER: That is the practice now. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any fur- ther discussion upon this question? MR. YOUNG: I can give what seems to me to be reasons for my vote in sup- porting the alternative and the motion which has been made. I voted against the two previous alternatives on the ground that I did not want to see the legislative and the executive power of the city mixed up too much. I believe that the people exercise their choice just as much in electing the City Council as they do in electing the mayor, and if we hold up the mayor in his executive posi- tion, why shouldn ’t we stand by the council whom the people have also elected. We elect the City Council for the very purpose of passing laws and we should hold them respon- sible for the laws that they pass. We elect the mayor to perform executive du- ties, and we should hold him responsible to that, and he should not be responsible for the legislative acts. It is not a ques- tion as to whether the mayors have abused this privilege or not. It is rather a ques- tion as to whether we should burden the mayor with all of the executive functions and then add certain legislative func- tions. As a result of this, he is busy either with the committees or with the City Council a large portion of the time, which might better be devoted to execu- tive functions of his office. MR. BENNETT: There has been a great deal of discussion and agitation with reference to the relation of the City Council to its presiding officer, and I think the question arises largely from the practice in other places. It occurs to me that if the mayor is to exercise the veto power, and some one must do that, — we will all agree upon that, — the mayor will be better quali- fied to intelligently exercise that au- thority if he hears the discussion upon the measures as they are presented. He would be at somewhat of a disadvan- tage in framing his vetoes if he didn’t understand the subject matter of the legislation passed. On the whole, I am inclined to feel that if we leave the veto power in the hands of the mayor, the services of the city will be better performed by his remaining as the pre- siding officer of the council. In fact, I am satisfied that that would be the case. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon Mr. Mc- Cormick’s motion to adopt the second alternative to number two the Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Badenoch, Beebe, Bennett, Brown, Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Fisher, Hill, Hoyne, Kittle- man, Lathrop, McMillan, McCormick, Merriam, Pendarvis, Powers, Raymer, Revell, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Smulski, Young — 25. Nays — Beilfuss, Burke, Crilly, Dover, Dixon, G. W., Erickson, Gansbergen, Guerin, Jones, Linehan, McKinley, O’Donnell, Owens, Robins, Snow, Sunny, Swift, Thompson, Vopicka, Werno — 20. November 30 86 1906 (During roll call.) MR. McMILLAN : Mr. Chairman, may I explain my vote. Mr. Chair- man, I am in favor of this alternative, excepting the last clause which I would like to suggest a change in. The clause is that the presiding officer of the City Council be elected by the direct vote of the people, but that the veto power be still vested in the mayor. However, if I can’t vote on that proposition, I will vote Aye on this alternative. MR, FISHER: I hope that is not the impression that prevails among the members of the Convention. We haven’t reached the veto power as yet. That’s the third resolution. Number three of this same resolution. THE CHAIRMAN : Proceed with the roll call. MR. WERNO: If my understanding is right, it is on the adoption of the alternative that we are voting, but the mayor is to retain his veto power. THE CHAIRMAN: The veto power is not included in this proposition. It simply provides that the present pro- visions shall be continued, but that the mayor shall not preside over the City Council. MR. WERNO: I vote No on that. MR, PENDARYIS: Mr. Chairman, I think my vote was not recorded. THE CHAIRMAN: You have voted before on this proposition, have you not? MR, PENDARYIS: No. I think there is some force in the suggestion that the alderman made about the presence of the mayor in the council during the discussion of the questions, if he is to retain the veto power. If this should be adopted, it disposes of all of the propositions under the mayor, does it not? MR. FISHER: That is a question which I would like to be enlightened upon, — as to what the position of the Chair is if we adopt the second alter- native to number two. Would it still leave us to adopt b and c of the first alternative to take up for a vote after- wards? THE CHAIRMAN: Undoubtedly. MR. PENDARYIS: Then I vote Aye on this. MR. BENNETT: If I understand that the veto question is not to be in- cluded here, then I would like to change my vote to Aye. THE CH AIRMAN: Mr. Bennett changes his vote from No to Aye. MR. BADENOCH: I would like to vote Aye. I didn’t vote. MR. LATHROP: I would like to change my vote from No to Aye. THE CHAIRMAN: There are twenty-five Ayes and twenty Noes. The second alternative to number two is adopted. MR. ECKHART: I move now that we adjourn to two o ’clock Monday. MR. McCORMICK: Wouldn’t you have a motion put that the resolutions as to the mayor be adopted as they now stand? THE CHAIRMAN: There are a number of propositions here that have not been considered yet. The motion is that this Convention stand adjourned until two o’clock Monday. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will assume that that means Monday at two o’clock, and Tuesday at two o’clock, and the records will so show. And the Convention stood adjourned to meet Monday, December 3rd, 1906, at 2 o’clock P. M. PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER MONDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1906 (Ihinujiv (Elmrtrr (ttnnnrutum Convened, December 12, 190S Headquarters 171 WASHINGTON 8TREET TELEPHONE MAIN 4877 Milton J. Foreman Chairman Alexander H. Rewell, . . Vice-Chairman M. L. McKinley Secretary Henry Barrett Chamberlin, Asst. Secy * - December 3 89 1906 PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Regular Meeting, Monday, December 3, 1906 2 O’clock P. M., in the City Council Chamber OFFICIAL RECORD Published by authority of the Chicago Charter Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: The Convention will come to order. The Secretary will 0 call the roll. r* Present — Foreman, Chairman, and / Badenoch, Baker, Beebe, Beilfuss, Ben- / nett, Brosseau, Brown, Burke, Church, 4 Cole, Crilly, Dever, Dixon, G. W., Dix- 1 on, T. J., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. ( W., Eidmann, Fisher, Gansbergen, / Guerin, Hoyne, Jones, Kittleman, Lath- • rop, Linehan, Lundberg, McCormick, * McGoorty, McKinley, Merriam, O’Don- nell, Owens, Pendarvis, Post, Powers, Raymer, Revell, Robins, Rosenthal, Sethness, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Sunny, Swift, Taylor, Thompson, Vopicka, Werno, White, Wil- kins, Young, Zimmer — 56. Absent — Carey Clettenberg, Cruice, Erickson, Fitzpatrick, Graham, Haas, Harrison, Hill, Hunter, MacMillan, Oehne, Paullin, Patterson, Rainey, Rin- aker, Walker, Wilson — 18. THE CHAIRMAN: Quorum present. The next business is the reading of the minutes of the last meeting, if a motion is not made to dispense with that. MR. REVELL: I move that the read- ing of the minutes be dispensed with. The motion prevailed unanimously. THE CHAIRMAN: By turning to the proceedings of the last meeting, at page 51, will be found the place at which the Convention stopped at its last meeting. MR. REVELL: Mr. Chairman: May I ask the unanimous consent of the Con- vention to present a substitute, — an al- ternative for a matter which is coming up later in the week? I wish to present it without discussion to-day in order to get it into the records and in order that the members of the Convention may have time to look the matter up. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no ob- jection, the unanimous consent will be given and the matter will be printed In the records to be taken up at some future time. MR. REVELL: I would like to have it read. December 3 90 1906 THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary read it. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Revell: Alternative to VI, the City Council. VI. THE CITY COUNCIL. 1. The charter shall provide for re- districting the city into sixty wards. 2. Each ward shall nominate candi- dates for aldermen, who shall be voted on by the entire city. 3. The terms of aldermen shall be four years. 4. One-fourth of the aldermen to re- tire each year. 5. No alderman shall be elected to succeed himself. 6. The compensation of aldermen shall be at the rate of $5,000 per an- num, and he shall have a secretary. 7. Aldermen shall give their entire time to serving the city as aldermen during the term for which they are elected. 8. Aldermen shall have office in their respective wards, at which they shall be found during the hours to be de- termined by ordinance or otherwise. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection, the matter will lay over until the subject is reached. The next mat- ter before the Convention is the first alternative to Number 2, at the top of the left-hand column. The Chair is un- der the impression that that is covered by the second alternative to Number 2, which has already been adopted. On the same page appears the second al- ternative to Number 2, which appears to cover substantially the same subject of this alternative. The Secretary will read b of the first alternative to Num- ber 2. THE SECRETARY read b of the first alternative to Number 2, as printed at page 51 of the proceedings. MR. FISHER: Question, Mr. Chair- man. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the reading of that section. What will you do with it? MR. FISHER: I move its adoption. THE CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and seconded that b of the first alternative to Number 2 shall be adopt- ed. The matter is before the house for discussion. MR. SHEPARD: Question. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll on that. Yeas — Beebe, Beilfuss, Church, Cole, Crilly, Dixon, G. W., Eckhardt, B. A., Eidmann, Fisher, Gansbergen, Guerin; Jones, Lathrop, Lundberg, McCormick, McKinley, Merriam, Pendarvis, Post, Raymer, Revell, Robins, Shedd, Snow, Taylor, Wilkins — 26. Nays — Bennett, Brosseau, Brown, De- ver, Eckhart, J. W., Hoyne, Kittleman, Linehan, McGoorty, O’Donnell, Owens, Rosenthal, Sethness, Shanahan, Shep- ard, Sunny, Swift, Thompson, Vopicka, White, Zimmer — 21. (During roll call.) MR. DEVER: I am not clear on it. I am not clear whether the section of the paragraph that is being voted upon takes away from the mayor his veto power. I understand that it takes away his veto power. THE CHAIRMAN: No. This is the left-hand column of page 51, the second paragraph — b. MR. DEVER: I desire to change my vote to nay. THE CHAIRMAN : Change your vote after the roll call, alderman. MR. DIXON: I request that the absentees be called, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: We can’t. The roll call is on now. MR. DEVER: I want to be recorded No. I haven’t followed the proceed- ings closely enough. I am in favor of having the mayor preside at the meet- ings of the council. MR. DIXON: I ask for a call of the absentees. THE SECERETARY: Those absent or not voting: December 3 91 1906 Badenoch, Baker, Burke, Carey, Clet- tenberg, Cruice, Dixon, T. J., Erickson, Fitzpatrick, Foreman, Graham, Haas, Harrison, Hill, Hunter, MacMillan, Oekne, Paullin, Patterson, Powers, Rai- ney, Rinaker, Smulski, Walker, Werno, Wilson, Young — 27. (During the roll call.) MR. BEILFUSS: Mr. Chairman, what is the roll call on? THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the section under discussion. THE SECRETARY read the section as above. MR. BEILFUSS: I vote Aye, Mr. Chairman, although I do not think that the matter is just in the shape that I would like to see it in. THE SECRETARY proceeded calling the names. Mr. SHEPARD: As I understand it, b of the first alternative to Number 2 is the only paragraph that we are voting on. The Chairman: b — that is it. MR. SHEPARD: I desire to change my vote to No on that. MR. WILKINS: Wilkins changes his vote from No to Aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any further changes? Ayes, 26; noes, 21. The motion is carried. The Secretary will read the next paragraph, c. THE SECRETARY read c, as it ap- pears on page 51 of the proceedings. MR. EIDMANN: I would like to ask the committee that sent in this report what they mean by an adminis- trative officer. Do they mean the head of a department? THE CHAIRMAN: I presume that would mean any department head of the city of Chicago; any officer charged with the administration of any depart- ment’s work. Gentlemen, the matter is before the house for discussion. MR. ECKHART: I move its adop- tion, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any dis- cussion on that question, gentlemen? MR, BENNETT: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Alderman Ben- nett. MR. BENNETT: It seems to me that this is not a desirable provision to in- sert in a charter. Under the previous section which was adopted, the mayor has the right to send messages to the council. If he has any ideas to express to the council, he can do so by mes- sage. I don’t think that the presence of an administrative officer would tend to harmony or to the accomplishing of good results. MR. RE YELL: If an amendment would be in order, I would like to amend by striking out the word “ shall” and put in the word “nay, ” so that he is not bound by this, but he can do as he pleases in the matter. MR. SHANAHAN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for information from whatever committee this came. If we adopt this number c after the adoption of b, as I understand it, the mayor would have a right to a seat in the city council, would have the right to speak and present messages, and certainly he can present messages now. Now, if we adopt c, the mayor can send in the com- missioner of public works to the coun- cil and he would have the right to a seat and to present messages and speak on any subject that might come up, but he would have no right to a vote. At the next session of the council, as Mr. Swift suggested, he can send the keeper of the pound, and it would be the same thing, and at the following session he may send the chief of police, at the next session the chief of the fire depart- ment, and at each session he could send in a different head. I don’t know that any good would come out of it, and I would like to hear from the committee that brought it in. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any fur- ther discussion? MR. POST: I would like an explana- tion as to the meaning of the word ad- December 3 92 1906 ministrative. I apprehend that the meaning here that is intended is that the mayor and the heads of the city de- partments be given seats and have the right to speak in the council. The de- partments heads would have the right to speak regarding their respective de- partments. If this means that the poundkeeper can be sent in to the coun- cil, I certainly would not favor it. MR. SHANAHAN: If the mayor wasn’t there he could send in some per- son to come for him. MR. POST: I will move, Mr. Chair- man, that it be changed to “through the head of an administrative depart- ment,” instead of through an adminis- trative officer of the city, — make it “through the head of an administra- tive department of the city.” THE CHAIRMAN: The first vote will be upon Mr. Revell’s motion to strike out “shall” and insert “nay.” MR. SHANAHAN: How many ad- ditional seats would there then be? How many of those administrative heads would have seats? MR. ECKHART (B. A.): Not more than one at a time. THE CHAIRMAN: Will you kindly formulate your amendment? MR. POST: At least only one at a time would have the floor. THE CHAIRMAN: The first vote will be upon Mr. Revell’s amendment, to strike out the word “shall’ and put in “may.” Are you ready for the question? All those in favor will say Aye. The motion prevailed unanimously. THE CHAIRMAN: Now, Mr. Post, what is yours? MR. POST: Strike out all after the words “an administrative officer of the city” and insert “heads of administra- tive departments of the city.” THE CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen, you have heard the amendment. All those in favor of it will signify by saying Aye. MR. BENNETT: Now, Mr. Chair- man, I move to table the paragraph as read and amended. THE CHAIRMAN: Just one minute, till I take this vote. The motion was lost. THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment is lost, and the resolution stands as orig- inally amended. MR. BENNETT: I move to table the resolution as amended. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you desire a roll call? MR. RE YELL: Mr. Chairman, I hope that that will not be done, unless Mr. Bennett can see some good reason why the mayor should not have a seat or attend the council if he so wishes. It strikes me that by striking out the word “shall” and inserting “may” the mayor can see that he is represent- ed properly if he so derires, it seems to me. He may know that a certain matter is coming up which it would be of very great benefit to the members of the council to have some person un- derstanding that question present in order to explain it, if he could not be present himself, and it certainly would be of very great benefit to the city and its people if the mayor or the proper officer who understands the question could be present. This simply changes it so that it is not compulsory upon the mayor, but he may do this, if he so desires. MR. BENNETT: As I understand it, we have adopted b, and that gives the mayor the right to be present, to send messages and communications. Section c, which we are now debating upon, sim- ply authorizes him to send a sub- stitute. Now, my motion is that Sec- tion c be placed on file. I can see no possible good which will come from the adoption of this resolution, but I can see a great deal of confusion that might arise. The administrativ-e officers are all under the direction of the council, and the proceedings of the council are December 3 93 1906 all matters of record, and the mayor, if he is not present, may advise himself of what is done, and at a subsequent meeting he can send in his recommenda- tion or suggestion with a veto. MR. ECKHART (B. A.): I don't see any objection to the adoption of this proposition. I can see no objections to having the head of a department of the city administration furnish such information and representing the mayor, as the mayor can do this through a message, if the information is desired. It seems to me that it is not a ma- terial proposition, and I cannot see any objection to it. I cannot see why we could object to it. It it not supposed that all the administrative officers, in- cluding the poundkeepers and the bridgetenders, will be present at every meeting of the city council, but it is simply that the mayor can have some- body there to carry out the rights and privileges which he has under the pre- vious resolution. I don't see why there should be any possible objection to this. MR. EIDMANN: I don't think the council should be burdened with this. The members of the council know how the business is carried on; any informa- tion that is desired from the head of departments is received in the way of written communications or are made by the committee, and it is reported as a rule, transmitted to the council as the report of such committee. I have no objection to the mayor being present, but I surely would object to having anyone that he might recommend or designate appear at any time and take up the time of the council on matters of legislation. The heads of depart- ments are executive officers; they are assistants to the mayor. Any infor- mation they have can at all times be given to him, and is given to him; the heads of these departments appear be- fore the committee and answer such questions as may be asked for them either in writing or verbally, but in most cases the recommendation is di- rect in writing from the heads of de- partments. I don't think that the mem- bers of this council should be burdened by the appointment of such officers. I think the membership of the council should consist absolutely of members elected by the people, and no one else. There is only one case that I know of where an outsider was permitted to speak in the city council, and, I think, it is a bad precedent. I don't think it will ever be permitted again. I think it is a mistake to have anyone address the council while they are assembled as members of the city council and as the legislative body of the municipality. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any fur- ther discussion? If not, the Secretary will call the roll upon Alderman Ben- nett's motion to file. Yeas — Beebe, Beilfuss, Bennett, Brown, Church, Dever, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Fisher, Hoyne, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, Lundberg, McCormick, McGoorty, Mc- Kinley, Owens, Pendarvis, Raymer, Ro- senthal, Sethness, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Snow, Sunny, Swift, Taylor, Thompson, Yopicka, White, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 37. Nays — Brosseau, Cole, Crilly, Eck- hart, B. A., Gansbergen, Guerin, Mer- riam, O'Donnell, Post, Revell, Robins — 11 . THE CHAIRMAN: Yeas, 37; nays, 11. The motion to file is carried. The Secretary will read No. 3, reading the section and all the alternatives. The Secretary then read No. 3 and the alternatives, as they appear at page 51 of the proceedings. THE CHAIRMAN: The matter be- fore the house is the alternative to No. 3. MR. McCORMICK: I move that it be placed on file. THE CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and seconded that alternative to December 3 94 1906 No. 3 be placed on file. Any discus- sion on the question? A VOICE: Question. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The motion is carried. MR. RAYMOND: I move the adop- tion of No. 3. THE CHAIRMAN: It is moved and seconded that No. 3 be adopted, the veto power of the mayor shall be as now prescribed by law. Any discussion? If not, as many as favor that say aye. Those opposed say no. The motion prevailed. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read No. 4. The Secretary then read No. 4 as it appears at pages 51 and 52 of the pro- ceedings. > MR. EIDMANN : I move that altern- ative No. 4 be placed on the table. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will assume that motions to lay on the ta- ble, or to file, are not intended to shut off debate; at least, they will not have that effect. MR. DEVER: I listened with a great deal of interest to Mr. Fisher’s discus- sion the other day on the question of the administrative and legislative power of the mayor, and his views with regard to putting those under two heads, and I was very much impressed with the force of his argument. I voted against the motion, but possibly with some mis- givings as to whether I was right or wrong in that. It seems to me in this case it is desirous, and I believe we will all assume that it is desirable that neither one department nor the other should have a controlling power over each other. The council, the legislative department, should not be placed under the control of the mayor, neither should the mayor or the executive department be put at the mercy of the council. It is desirable to separate these two de- partments, or at least to arrange it so that they will co-operate effectually with each other, and so that they can get along with each other. It seems to me it becomes necessary to adopt this al- ternative to No. 4. That gives the mayor and the city council, whether the term be fixed for two years or four years, or any other term, that gives them the same length of time to serve in office. It has been a matter of well- known history here that the mayors who have sat in the presiding officer’s chair have had and do have and exer- cise constantly a controlling influence over the deliberations and the conduct of the aldermen to some extent. And even to go further than that, it is within the knowledge of perhaps all of us who have been watching the affairs of this city that the mayors who have occupied the chair have interested themselves in the nominees for office of the various parties, and have said to the people of the various wards who they should nominate for political office for certain offices. Now, if you should give the mayor a four years’ term and give the aldermen a two years’ term, then the power of the mayor over the aldermen and over the nominations, why, he would control absolutely the legislation of this council. We have it to some extent to-day, and have had it to a greater extent in times past; if you give them more power, they will take advantage of it. Now, an alderman is only human, and it is sometimes diffi- cult for some of us to come to the council. Now, some men in certain sections of the city, under certain cir- cumstances, get the nominations for the office, and in reference to this I believe that a man should hold public office free from the control of the city administra- tion or the control of the county office. I believe the aldermen should be elect- ed for four years if the mayor has a four-year term, so that such an ap- pointee will know that he will hold office for four years, and that will have some influence in the matter of nomi- December 3 95 1906 nating candidates for certain offices. I think that section should be adopted. MR. ROSENTHAL: I am very much in favor of the adoption of this al- ternative; but the recommendation of our committee on municipal elections and tenure of office, alternative No. 4, will be practically the same as No. 4, because the committee recommends that the term of the aldermen should be four years, that the aldermen be elected for four years, one-half of the aldermen to be elected every two years, so that the two would be equivalent. Now, it strikes me as undesirable that the office of mayor should be exalted over that of the aldermen. It would be in reality subordinating the legislative de- partment to the executive department. It strikes me no department should be subordinated to another. In the nation we have our senators elected for six years, and our representatives elected for two years, and the president elected for four years, something of a balance; in other words, the president occupies the middle time. It strikes me it would be a very unfortunate thing to put in this term of office of four years and not have the term of office of the aldermen four years. It would be simply exalt- ing the office of mayor in the way in- dicated, which should not be allowed; it would be subordinating the office of al- dermen to that of the mayor, which should not be subordinated. MR. FISHER: I think before we vote on this we should get clearly be- fore our minds the situation we have created by the measures now adopted. In the discussion we have had thus far as to the functions of the mayor and the manner of his selection, it has been proposed that the mayor should be separated, as far as possible, from the legislative. Personally, it is my own conviction that no one department is to have precedence over the other; that in all cases the legislative depart- ment should be the policy determining department, and that that department should control the men who are merely to carry out and administer that de- partment. I have already expressed my views on that. The Convention, how- ever, has decided, as I understand it, has decided for the reason — at least it would appear so from the trend of the debate — that it did not wish to sub- ordinate the mayor to the city council. You are now face to face with the prop- osition as to whether you will subordi- nate the legislative to the executive; you have created a mayor who has the veto power, and who has the power to appoint various heads of departments. Someone must appoint the subordinate executive officials, and that must, in the nature of things — must be the chief executive, the mayor. If you leave the formation of the government in that shape, it means you will have a mayor who is going to have the power of the appointment of all the heads of depart- ments, and if he is elected for four years, and the members of the council are elected for only two years, why, in- evitably the influence of the mayor will be overwhelming, and if it is exerted in the right direction it will be at his dictation. If we are going to keep up the theory of having two departments independent of each other, of relative- ly equal responsibility, you must make them co-ordinate, and on equal terms. You must not create an official who knows that in two years he must go to the people for re-election, and in the executive chair sits a man who is there for four years. However, it seems to me that this alternative and the main proposition to which it is the alternative will be much more intelligently considered if we de- fer action upon this at this time and take it up when we are considering the term of office of the aldermen, when that comes up for our consideration. I think we can then more intelligently de- cide on what recommendation to make, December 3 96 1906 when we decide this matter, when we decide whether we will make the alder- manic term four years. I move that No. 4 and the alternative be postponed for action in connection with the decision and deliberation of this Convention upon the term of office of aldermen. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion. Any discus- sion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. The motion prevailed. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read No. 4. MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to make a suggestion? I see my late lamented friend, a native of Russia, resident of Paris, citizen of the world, Mr. Ostrogorsky, is down in the proceedings as Mr. Oscar Gorsky, which, I apprehend, is a fair statement of what was understood. Of course, it occurs to me if these minutes that are taken by our efficient stenographers are to be printed and sent broadcast with- out revision, some of us are apt to get into trouble; I don’t know whether libel suits or other things might follow, but I did not suppose that a transcript of the proceedings would be printed and sent broadcast without some revision, to ascertain whether it is correct or not. I have not examined the rest to know whether the accuracy in other respects is the same as regard to the name of the distinguished gentleman whom I have named. MR. POST: What is the name? MR. FISHER: His name is Ostro- gorsky — one name. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection, the gentleman’s name will be corrected officially. MR. FISHER: Is it the intention, may I ask, of having the notes tran- scribed regularly and printed and sent out in this way? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. FISHER: Without revision? THE CHAIRMAN: Well, it is re- vised as far as it is possible to revise it. It is the intention to get the day’s work in the hands of the Convention at the succeeding meeting, and we will try to get it as accurately as possible. Perhaps there won’t be any more hard names to spell. MR. BENNETT: I suggest that if any such thing happens again, the name be spelled out in writing. THE CHAIRMAN:' If there is no ob- jection it is so Ordered. The secretary will read No. 4. The secretary then read No. 4 as it appears at page 51. in the proceedings. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon the second alternative to No. 1. MR. FISHER: Not for the purpose of debate, but I think at this time, it will be well to call attention to a mat- ter which has not been explained here- tofore to the Convention, namely: that the committee on rules in adopting the order of these various propositions, and their alternatives intended to, and sup- posed that they had adopted the policy of putting first the main proposition or recommendation of the committee having the subject matter in charge. I think we should understand how these alternatives came to be presented as alternatives and not as main proposi- tions. No. 1, as I understand it, is the recommendation of the committee on election; the other alternatives are in- tended to represent other views pre- sented to the committee on rules. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon the second alternative to No. 1, which the secretary will read. The secretary thereupon read the second alternative to No. 1 as it ap- pears at page 52 in the proceedings. MR. McCORMICK: I move that it be placed on file. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion that the second alternative to No. 1, providing for the December 3 97 1906 nomination of elective city officers, be placed on file. MR. BENNETT: Does that not raise the question as to whether this is a proper section to insert in the charter? It occurs to me we should have a general election law in this state, and that the provisions with reference to elections should go in such a law. Per- haps I am wrong, but it occurs to me it is a subject that does not belong in a city charter. MR. FISHER: While speaking to this proposition made to table this matter, I think Alderman Bennett is incorrect in the general principle that is laid down, for this reason: First, if we are to have any special modification for the City of Chicago, differing from the rest of the state, and in all of the general laws we have had on the subject there has been an attempt to create special divisions, there is under the present law such an attempt, that should be done under this amendment, and as a part of this charter; at least as a special provision to it; therefore, it will have to be adopted as a part of this charter, although it had to be done by separate bill, as is proposed in the first matter that we postponed until the end, and we all recognize, I think, first, that the commissions in the City of Chicago are radically different, not only from the commissions in the rest of the state, I mean the rural parts of the state, but also from the com- missions which prevail in other cities in the state; and certainly that has been the practice heretofore, and I think we all recognize that there is a very strong public demand in this city, and that is found not among the masses of the people only, but among those that are active in politics, that a differentiation can be made by which the officers of the city, the aldermen, or whatever their office is, shall be selected by nomination by petition and not by means of the present somewhat complicated machinery of our direct primaries. Now, personally I am in favor of the original proposition, or re- commendation of the committee having this matter in charge. MR. BEEBE: This brings up the question of electing a large number of men through the city as a whole. If we elect our aldermen from the city as a whole, it will be difficult to vote for — I believe it is — sixty, under No. 1 of the alternative proposition pre- sented this afternoon, under any other system than the party system. If, on the other hand, we are to elect our aldermen by wards, I think the system presented by the committee will be much the best. MR. ROSENTHAL: I don’t know that there is such a recommendation as to elect the aldermen from the city as a whole. THE CHAIRMAN: There has been a suggestion by Mr. Revell MR. RE YELL: There was a subse- quent suggestion made this afternoon that provides for that matter, but it does not provide for sixty aldermen being elected at one time or in any one year. THE CHAIRMAN : If there is no fur- ther discussion, we will have the secre- tary call the roll. Yeas — Beebe, Beilfuss, Brosseau, Burke, Cole, Crilly, Dever, Dixon, T. J., Fisher, Jones, Lathrop, Linehan, Mc- Cormick, McGoorty, McKinley, Merri- am, O’Donnell, Owens, Post, Raymer, Revell, Robins, Rosenthal, Sethness, Shedd, Taylor, Thompson, Yopicka, Werno, White, Young, Zimmer — 32. Nays— Baker, Bennett, Church, Dix- on, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eidman, Erickson, Guerin, Hoyne, Kittleman, Lundberg, Pendarvis, Pow- ers, Shanahan, Shepard, Snow, Sunny, Swift, Wilkins — 20. THE CHAIRMAN: Yeas, 32; Noes, 20. The motion to table is carried. December 3 98 1906 THE CHAIRMAN: The first alterna- tive to No. 1. MR. ZIMMER: In regard to alterna- tive No. 1, I move the adoption. THE CHAIRMAN: It is moved and seconded that the first alternative to No. 1 be adopted. The motion is open to the house for discussion. MR. COLE: I don’t very often envy the people who have a large vocabulary of eloquent words, but I do at the pres- ent time, for it seems to me we have come to the most important item in the whole charter. There are com- plaints made all over the city constantly in regard to our mayor and alderman playing politics in their offices. There are arguments brought forward in re- gard to the contention that we should have a mayor who is a mayor; a busi- ness mayor; and a business mayor and a political mayor don’t jibe together, and they cannot jibe together. There is only one way to divorce the mayor from politics. The parties themselves will be strengthened by the making of this a non-political nomination. I do not know, and I cannot see at all where there is any direct connection between the city — the municipality and the state. I am willing to concede that parties are necessarily desirable in state af- fairs and national affairs. I am willing to concede that party organization should be carried on in county affairs, but it seems to me it becomes a point now of the utmost importance whether politics are at all involved in municipal affairs. Why should not we divorce municipal affairs from politics? I don’t see where the election of a mayor and aldermen can be in any way connected with a republican or a democratic nom- ination any more than the representa- tive or the president of the First National Bank, or the election of a man- ager of Marshall Field’s store. I be- lieve if you attempt to act in one thing that can bring about reform in the city administration this is the one thing more than anything else that we should act upon, and we should decide in future that the election of city officers shall be by petition only. Let us divorce republicanism from munici- pal affairs; let us divorce democracy from municipal affairs. Let us nominate and elect mayors who will be mayors instead of having them take up their time interviewing political parties and having them elect them as head of the party. Let us divorce the parties from municipal politics so that the mayor shall be elected by the city and decide in favor of it as opposed to any other method. MR. JONES: I am in favor of the motion, because I believe that nomina- tion by petition would not accomplish what Mr. Cole suggests. We know that any man that becomes a candidate for any office in this city must have a vote- getting organization behind him. Throughout the century we have been working up a system whereby the polit- ical party has become a vote-getting organization, and the man who secured the nomination by a political party has back of him a vote-getting force — the vote-getting force of that party. Now, if, by such a plan as this, we should eliminate the political party, the can- didate would have to devise a vote- getting organization in some other way; and as far as I can see, there are only two ways in which he would get it. One would be in case he were a very wealthy man and had sufficient funds to organize a vote-getting machine of his own; and the second would be in case he is backed by some special in- terest which is desirous of seeing his election. I believe that the elimination of the party as a vote-getting organiza- tion would be inadvisable, therefore, because it would bring in either the power of the wealth of the individual, or it would make supreme special in- terests in the city which might have an interest in the candidacy of a par- December 3 99 1906 ticular man. That would be the result if this petition plan should eliminate the party system. But I believe it would not eliminate the party. It would make the party irresponsible. We are in favor of the primary election sys- tem, in order that the party may be controlled and its leaders be compelled to recognize the desires of the rank and file. By this petition plan the leaders of the party would get together in a caucus and decide upon a particu- lar man to be supported by the party, and they would get petitions filed, and that man would be the nominee; but the people of the party would have no vote, and will have done nothing in the matter. Now, the direct primary ob- ject is to prevent the leaders themselves from selecting a nominee, and compel them to go back to the rank and file to select the nominee. I believe the march of progress is from the uncontrolled political party, to the political party controlled by the primary election, and if you now take the step of eliminating the primary election and going back to the petition, you go back to over a century ago, be- fore the political convention system was adopted. Then men were nomi- nated by petition, and by anonymous letters. Now, there is another move- ment to reduce the number on the ticket, and establishing the petition plan would simply block instead of remove objection from that standpoint. Instead of having one nominee from each of several parties, you would have a larger number of names and a greater number of parties. I, therefore, am in favor of the primary election plan, as opposed to the petition plan, because I believe the petition plan will not eliminate the party; and if it did, it would be objectionable, because it would create another organization. And, in the second place, I am opposed to it, because it would make the party irresponsible, and the primary election law places in the hands of the people the nominations for city offices; and that is where they should be placed. MR. ROSENTHAL: I move to sub- stitute No. 1 for the alternative to No. 1. It is that the elected city offi- cers shall be nominated only by peti- tion of qualified voters. THE CHAIRMAN: Will you reduce your amendment to writing, please? MR. ROSENTHAL: It is already printed here. I substitute No. 1 for the alternative to No. 1. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion as made. Would it not be well to permit a vote to be taken on each one of these matters? MR. ROSENTHAL: Except if the first alternative to No. 1 would be car- ried, that w r ould put an end to No. 1. Therefore, at this juncture, I move No. 1, which becomes first, as a substantive to the alternative. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion of Mr. Rosenthal to sub- stitute No. 1 for the first alternative to No. 1. In other words, to substitute the petition plan for the direct prim- ary plan. MR. O’DONNELL: Will you kindly state the question? THE CHAIRMAN: Sir? MR. O’DONNELL: Will you kindly state the pending question? THE CHAIRMAN: The pending ques- tion is Mr. Rosenthal’s motion to sub- stitute No. 1 for the first alternative to No. 1. MR. THOMPSON: Why cannot we — MR. O’DONNELL: I rise to a point of order. The original motion was due virtually to what is Mr. Rosenthal’s desire to accomplish by his motion. As I understand, the original motion was to take THE CHAIRMAN: The first alterna- tive to No. 1. MR. O’DONNELL: The first alter- native to No. 1? December 3 100 1906 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. O’DONNELL: The first motion is to substitute the alternative itself. THE CHAIRMAN: No, sir, the pro- position itself. MR. O’DONNELL: I beg pardon. MR. ROSENTHAL: I wish to say a word on that proposition. The report of our committee went over this ques- tion: That was that we were in favor of nominating all the aldermen by pe- tition. We expressed no opinion upon the question of the nomination of the mayor. However, it seems to me that there is no danger of doing away with the party, as such, or of making an irresponsible party, or having irrespon- sible nominations. In other places where the same system has been tried, it has been found to work very ef- fectively. Nor is there any danger of having a large number of nomina- tions, because there are places in which it is sufficient for only eight or ten people to nominate candidates for of- fices, yet, as a rule, only two or three are nominated. I, myself, believe that the direct primary method may be found to be a great disappointment, for it will not accomplish what the people suppose we are accomplishing by the direct primaries. Now, let us have one election at which people can express their opinion and express it definitely and decisively. If a person wants to come before the people as a candidate, give him the opportunity to come be- fore them. The party, instead of being less responsible, will be more respon- sible than it was before, and for this reason, in my opinion: because the party knows now that it is very difficult to place some other man in nomination for a particular office, with a provision such as this, and with a party such as we have here. Then, again, the party will be particular about making nomi- nations, because it knows that a direct candidate can be put up by petition. Therefore, I am in favor of substituting this. MR. WHITE: In order that I may vote intelligently on this proposition, I would like to ask if it is contemplated, in case this first alternative is adopted, that the election shall take place — the nominations, rather, shall take place under the present direct primary law, which, by the way, is not a direct pri- mary law at all; or whether it con- templates the formation of some special primary law which shall be a primary law for the City of Chicago. THE CHAIRMAN: I presume the lat- ter is the intention, but it is to secure information from this convention the committee is after, whether some direct primary law shall be adopted. MR. RAYMER: A few minutes ago, when the question of the term of the mayor was up for consideration, one of the arguments used was that if you differentiated between the term of the mayor and the aldermen, the mayor, be- ing in office for four years, would de- sire to side-track the aldermen to pre- vent his renomination, owing to the fact that he. would go on two years still in office, and that would make him doubly strong; that would give him leverage with the political party that would be strong enough to defeat the aldermen. It seems to me, gentlemen, that if the report of the committee is adopted, that you eliminate entirely from that argument the fact that the mayor will have anything to do with an alderman securing renomination. Nomination by petition would enable a man to act more independently than he would, if, fearing the mayor’s opinion, he would permit his judgment to be governed or actuated by the mayor. I think that if the report of the com- mittee is adopted, you take away from that argument its strongest point, and I believe that people who desire to run for office— for municipal office — the December 3 101 1906 people in his neighborhood should at least have the right and the privilege of nominating him if they so desire. As it is today it is a well known fact that if a political organization does not de- sire a man for a candidate, it is im- possible, almost, under our present sys- tem, for him to become a candidate without a great deal of expense. But my judgment is that if the report of the committee is adopted, it would re- sult in a much better condition than we have today, and it would absolutely, in my opinion, eliminate politics from your aldermanic board, and I think that should be done. MR. WHITE: May I now speak very briefly to this proposition: If, as you say, it is contemplated to have a real, genuine, direct primary law of the City of Chicago THE CHAIRMAN: That is the pre- sumption. MR. WHITE: I understand. Then, personally, I should be in favor of the direct primary system of nomination; theoretically, I think nomination by pe- tition is very pleasant to think about, but it undoubtedly has some disad- vantages. I think Senator Jones strikes the key note of the difficulty, and the danger of the petition proposition, in the fact that the man who seeks nomi- nation by petition, if he has plenty of wealth, for instance, will certainly have an advantage over the man who has little or no wealth; and, secondly, the temptation to great corporate interests, not only with their immense wealth back of them, but with their immense following of one kind or another, to circulate petitions, would practically bring about the nomination of that kind of men that one would wish to dis- courage in a great city like this. That is one of the greatest dangers in the petition proposition, and for that reason, chiefly, I am in favor of the direct primary instead of nomination by pe- tition. MR. SHANAHAN: I desire some in- formation. I am somewhat confused after listening to Mr. Rosenthal in re- gard to these two propositions. The proposition submitted by the commit- tee ’s alternative is that city officers shall be elected only by the petition of qualified voters, and, still, in his talk, he goes on and he states what the party may do. The party will be more guard- ed and careful in regard to the kind of men they put up. I will ask Mr. Rosenthal how the republican or the democratic parties are going to make nominations under the provisions of this section. If John Smith, or John Jones, or John Brown, went out and got up a petition for Mr. Williams as the democratic nominee for mayor, why could not four or five other citizens go out and get up this same petition, and then decide who is the democratic candidate for mayor? I take it, if this is adopted, you do away with the parties entirely, and that any man desiring to run for mayor will go out and get up a peti- tion signed by a certain number of qualified voters of 50 or 100 men, and appear as a candidate for mayor, and that all such shall have their names printed on the ticket in alphabetical order. Am I right? MR, ROSENTHAL: Under this rule, I believe I am not allowed to speak again on this proposition. MR. SHANAHAN: I have asked a question. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shanahan asked the question and you have the right to reply. MR. ROSENTHAL: I see no obstacle in the democratic party nominating a man, or the republican party confirming a nomination already made by petition, or withdrawing the strength of the party from a man nominated by peti- tion. The only thing we take away is the legal efficacy of a party nomina- tion, and it seems to me that is a December 3 102 1906 good thing to take away in all muni- cipal elections. It is true that we are, in a measure, reverting to old systems. Wherever that old system was tried, originally, it was found to work ex- cellently; and wherever it has been worked in recent times, it has been worked excellently; and it seems to me it is time to restore that system to our municipal elections. It also has been found that the direct primaries have in certain places been manipulated, but they cannot be manipulated more than in the great party matters. Now, they can be carefully manipulated. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no further discussion of the question MR. FISHER: Pardon me, Mr. Chair- man. It seems to me that we are going to vote on a question that is of vital importance, as Mr. Cole has said, and that we should clearly understand what we are voting on and what the effect of the vote will be. Now, I think that it is within the knowledge of every one in this Convention that, as a matter of fact, national party lines cut no real figure in municipal elections in the City of Chicago in a real funda- mental sense; and, it seems to me, that the figure which national party lines cut in the election of mayor of the City of Chicago today, is merely with regard to the machinery of the nomi- nation and election of mayor. I would like to ask the members of this con- vention, what is the principle of the republican party with regard to public utilities in this city, if any man can answer it. I mean the party, as a party. What does the republican party, as a party, believe in the municipal owner- ship and operation of public utilities? Is it for or against municipal owner- ship and operation, or is it for or against private ownership and opera- tion under regulation? We all know that within the republican party, as now constituted, and within the demo- cratic party, as now constituted, there are large bodies of men who differ on such questions of municipal import as distinguished from national politics. You remember when we ran a republi- can candidate for mayor. It has hap- pened already. Let us talk about the realities that exist before us. At the last election in this city, the re- publican party nominated a gentleman for mayor, who, according to common understanding, wrote his own platform on that question, and so stated at the time, and so stated on the platform dur- ing the campaign. Did he represent the voice and the opinion of the republican party in doing it? It may be he re- presented the opinion of the majority of that body; but there was a large num- ber of men, who, as republicans, felt constrained to vote for the candidate of another party, although they dis- agreed with the platform adopted by that party. So it was with the demo- cratic side. So it is with all of us. You cannot by any possibility success- fully operate a party which is organ- ized on national and state lines, and fit that party to a municipal election. It never has been done, and it never will be done. The lines of cleavage of the different parties are divided. The lines upon which they are agreed in national and state elections, are not the same lines governing a municipal election. We all know it is so. Here are two great parties which are formed, let us say, on two sides, where a fundamental issue has been involved on the question of slavery, or the question of tariff, or any other question of that sort upon which men divide, all through this land. Now, it by no means follows that in this certain body of men, believing in a tariff, or a certain party of men being adherents of free trade, or something other than a tariff, that the same body of men will divide in anything like that way on a municipal question relating to public utilities, or anything else. Yet you are in this position: having or- December 3 103 1906 ganized a great political party, and dividing it on national and state lines, that party having its organization ex- tending into and over each one of the districts out of which it is composed — if that party has an organization, as today it has, — you are in this position, that that organization is created along those lines. For instance, you have the republican party. That republican party organizes affairs by election dis- tricts and electing delegates to the larger districts, and the convention elects the delegates to a still larger convention for the state. And the or- ganization starts at the top or the bot- tom, as you please, and extends from one extreme to the other. Now, that party organization works on national and state lines. Now, there comes a municipal election, and it proposes to nominate a candidate for mayor, and his views on the tariff or any other national question cut absolutely no figure in the proposed election. There is no possible point where it touches the proposition of a municipal election. Now, what is going to happen? You say: “There must be an organization for vote getting. There must be some sort of an organization behind the can- didate. ’’ Now, we have all our sym- pathies in this question of a municipal election within the party organization, which, so formed, proceeds to elect a delegate and make nomination for mayor. Now, it always happens — and I am speaking to gentlemen who have some knowledge of practical politics — it always happens that the intelligent, wise, party politicians, instead of be- ing glad of a proposition of that kind, are uniformly embarrassed by it. Take the question, for instance, of public utilities. That is a question that will alienate a large body of members of that party, no matter what position they take in regard to it, and the re- sult is that they will straddle the pro- position, or you make a candidate stand on his own platform, so that it invari- ably becomes an embarrassment. They say: “We don’t want to take the posi- tion of the republican party in favor or against municipal ownership, for this reason: If we declare in favor of mu- ] nicipal ownership of public utilities in 1 the City of Chicago, there are a large number of our adherents — a great body of republicans — who are not in favor of that idea. They belong to the republi- can party, but with regard to the ques- tion of public utilities, they are not with us. They are interested in tariff and other national questions. If, on the other hand, we take a position against municipal operation of public utilities in this city, we are going to alienate a large body of the rank and file of our party who have thought upon it, and thought over issue, and are in favor of municipal ownership of public utilities. The result is that one of two things is inevitable. You can consider all possible alternatives, but they come down to two: You must either adopt one platform on one side or other of this question, and alienate those who do not believe in it; or you must strad- dle the proposition. We all know what is the usual method that is adopted: It is to straddle, if it can be done; or it is a platform which does not mean anything, if it can be gotten up so that it doesn’t mean anything. If the public sentiment is so aroused on the question it will not tolerate a straddle, and then the handling of the whole question is passed up to the individual candidate. Then the appeal is to the people that the democrats shall support the demo- cratic candidate, because he is a demo- cratic candidate; and that the repub- licans shall support the republican can- didate, because he is a republican. In- stead of fighting out your campaign on the real issue, you are getting a fictitious issue, which either wrecks or defeats him, and does not represent republican- ism or democracy, and does not repre- December 3 104 1906 sent the principle applicable to the par- ticular question. Now, I will ask any man in this house whether he believes it is possible to organize and to get up an organiza- tion of a great political party on na- tional lines — a party that is intended to fight out a national or state election, and still keep that party united on munici- pal ownership questions. It cannot be done; it never has been done. Now, if you nominate the other way, you will have growing up in your cities what ought to grow up in your cities, namely, municipal parties. These municipal par- ties will nominate their own candidates; men who believe in one thing or the other. They will advocate the election of the man who believes on this side of a question, and they will oppose the other. Of course, it is difficult, as I said the other day, for any man to put himself in a position where he clearly understands how a change of this sort will operate, unless the machinery stands which will exist when the pres- ent machinery is destroyed for that purpose. If we nominate by petition, — everybody nominated by petition, then any body of men who believe in any policy for which any candidate can stand, can nominate. The republican party and the democratic party can still nominate its men, if it wishes, and hold caucases and conventions and se- lect its men in the ordinary way that it can now be done. It merely will have a petition circulated and filed and the man petitioned for becomes the candidate, and you will find at once that instead of that party being able to put its candidate by force of the party machinery before the people — you will realize that, the republican party and the democratic party THE CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Fisher, your time is up. MR. SNOW : In the discussion on this point so far, it seems to me most remarkable that those gentlemen who ad- vocate a change to nomination by peti- tion, apparently fail to grasp the full extent of the change which would be brought about if that system of nomina- tion were adopted. Mr. Fisher, in his very able discussion, insists upon comparing nomination by petition with nomination by the present political machinery through the present political convention. This Convention has already passed upon that phase of the question and has voted we would put aside a nomination by the old line politi- cal party in convention assembled. The proposition before this Convention at this time is : shall nominations be made by direct primary, in which the man receiving a majority of the votes of all citizens desiring to participate in that election shall express his choice in select- ing their candidate for office, or shall there be as many nominations and as many men upon the ticket as little groups of individuals decide to put upon it? Now, as a matter of fact, the purpose should be to secure at the last election, the final election, an opportunity for the voters to decide upon the best man who has been placed before them. If the men are placed before them by petition in unlimited numbers, in the practical work- ings out, it may easily happen that the man who is backed by some special inter- est, the man whose election will not be for the best interests of the people as a w r hole, will get onto that ticket with enough others put there by his friends to so split and divide the vote that the man who has special interest behind him may easily be elected. Now, if you are going to select by direct primaries, all men who desire, or for whom there is any public desire that they become a candidate, get an oppor- tunity in a first trial at that primary election, and they are then reduced to an irreducible minimum, between which the voters have a final choice and in which a majority can easily control. Now, if it were a question between the December 3 105 1906 nomination by petition and a nomina- tion by the delegate convention, in the line of a national political organizaton, there might be force, — I will go further, there is force to the argument which has been advanced; but, as between nomination by petition, where a few individuals can put up as many men as they see fit, and a nomination by direct primary from tvhich will come but two or three people which will come before the people for final choice, it seems to me there can be no question as to which will give the best result in the end. But just a word on the question of petition. In these days, we hear a great deal and see a great deal about this question of government by petition: of the inalienable right of citizens to peti- tion. Now, as a matter of fact, no form of bringing men before the public can be more open to serious objection, more open to danger than this form of un- limited petition. No safeguards what ever are thrown around it; simply a question of taking out a list, getting any number of names to sign it, and then put- ting that in as a part of governmental machinery. We have had experience with petitions of that kind in Chicago. The Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago more than once have found it necessary to throw petitions out because of the fraud- ulent manner in which they were brought up, made, collected. If we are going to propose that nominations shall be made by petitions, then, at least, we should wait until we have some proper safeguard in the manner of collecting those petitions. The idea of nominations by petition is an imported idea. It has been worked in some of the European governments, notably in Switzerland. But, if the gen- tlemen will bear in mind, the petitions there are as carefully safeguarded as our primary elections or our elections in this country. In some of the Swiss cantons the voter must appear at a public polling place and sign that petition, and he must prove his right as a voter to sign it. But with us, government by petition has been simply the circulating of a petition in the dark, and too frequently the preparing of a petition from a city directory or a voting sheet. It seems to me, gentlemen of the Con- vention, that the whole question now hinges not on the nomination by petition as opposed to political nominations, but which will bring about a best result. A large number of names upon the final ballot when an election is held, or those names sifted down through the medium of a direct primary in which every citi- zen who desires to express his choice will be given an opportunity, and only one choice. MB. WEBNO: It seems to me that the gentlemen who have spoken against nominations by petition are laboring un- der a misapprehension, or either I don’t understand the situation. It does not seem to me it makes any difference. The man who gets the largest number of names is not the only man who is going to get on that petition. It will not be necessary to get a majority of the voters of the City of Chicago, if a man wants to become a candidate for mayor; nor do I understand it is necessary for a man to get a majority of the voters of his ward if he wants to become a candidate for alderman. I don’t see why it should cost a great deal of money. I don ’t think there is anything in that argument. ME. O’DONNELL: We know that the parties in this state are committed to direct primaries. The Democratic party has adopted resolutions, and they have decided in their party councils that they were in favor of direct primaries. I be- lieve the present state administration is also committed to direct primaries, and I think the people were promised a direct primary election law. That has failed in some particulars, — judging from the laws passed recently, — but there is a movement on foot, I am informed, to make the neeessary corrections and give us a direct primary election law. December 3 106 1906 Now, there exists upon the statute books a law authorizing the nominations by petition. It has worked very w T ell in some communities ; it has worked very well in some wards in the city. Now, why cannot we adopt both those systems here? The petition: keep it where it is in the law ; and also have your direct primary? I believe we can have both. They can go on side by side in the matter. To bring this matter before the Con- vention, Mr. President, I offer this amend- ment and ask that it be substituted for both sections now under discussion, and move its adoption. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. O’Don- nell: The elective city officers shall be nominated only by petition or by and under a system of direct primaries. THE CHAIRMAN : ' Gentlemen, you have heard the substitute. The substi- tute is before the house for discussion. MR. LINEHAN : I don ’t see anything to be accomplished by that. A man who believes in nomination by petition believes that there is no occasion for party or- ganization in municipal affairs. This straddles the question and makes us be- lieve in both parties as well as petitions. Those who are in favor of nomination by petition want an opportunity to test their vote on that. We would like that oppor- tunity, and you might as well give it to us, because we will have to move to lay that on the table if you do not. We have got to register our votes. THE CHAIRMAN : The Chair has no desire, the Chair has no discretion except to put all resolutions and motions that are offered. Mr. O’Donnell offers it as a substitute, and it is the duty of the Chair to give the convention an opportunity to vote. The question is on the substitute of Mr. O’Donnell. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed, nay. The substitute is lost. The question re- verts to Mr. Rosenthal’s proposition. MR. McGOORTY : I would like to make this point of order : that, while ostensibly the question is ‘germane to the maiti question, yet, in fact, it seems to me that there is such a wide diversion that the question ought to be separate, and matters of such moment and impor- tance to this Convention should be met squarely by a separate vote on each question. One presumes that there shall be a party and that nominations shall be made in a certain way, namely: by direct primaries; the other provides that there shall be no party. That is, as we now' understand it, and that nominations shall be by petition. Therefore, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, the question should be divided, and that we first should pass upon the question as to the policy of the Convention in regard to nomination by petition. THE CHAIRMAN : It appears to be the state of the question before the house now. A vote upon Mr. Rosen- thal ’s substitute would bring the mat- te?, — MR. PENDARVIS: It has been my observation and experience, Mr. CEair- man, that nearly all legislation that is practical comes from the experience of men, rather than from their theories. We have here before us three proposi- tions, one of which has been tried to a large extent, which we have just voted down. We know, from experience, that there are objections to that system. We know also, or we can see, if not from experience, that there are objections to the first alternative that is submitted, and that there are also just as serious and weighty objections to the main prop- osition. Now 7 , both of these two prop- ositions that are under consideration in this motion are, to a large extent, ex- perimental. The question of nominating by petition only is a very nice one to sit in this room and think about and be- lieve that it would prove a cure-all for the objections that have been raised to the system that we have tried ; but, when we get down to practical experience, it can easily be seen, as has been pointed out here this afternoon, that it will not prove unobjectionable in all respects, but the probabilities are that we will December 3 107 1906 meet with just as serious objections in the trial of that system as under the one which we have already been working under. Now, these questions were discussed at some length in the Committee, which has submitted its report; but, Mr. Chair- man and Gentlemen, that Committee was almost evenly divided upon the prop- ositions, and most of these questions which were controverted were carried by a vote of about five to four or four to three, in nearly every instance. I think Senator Jones and Mr. White have struck the keynote of objection to nominating by petition only, and I think those who have had experience in the obtaining of candidates for alderman throughout the various wards will bear out the statement that you will not al- ways find the best candidate or the most available candidate, or the most desirable candidate, if he must be obtained by peti- tion without some organization behind him, or without some alluring prospect of success at the election. It would be a nice thing if all that were needed were for a man to circulate a petition and get the necessary signatures and nothing else be done about his election but to submit his candidacy to a vote of the people, but you know and I know that that is only the preliminary part of the work, and that does not mean his election. The election means the expen- diture of a large amount of money, I sorry to say. And one of the most serious propositions in this district, in most of the wards, is financing a can- didate for alderman ; and you are not going to get men to seek that position by petition unless there is some way provided in advance for making his campaign and making it successful If you have reached this point in progress and development of nomination by political parties, — and in most of the wards of the city they nominate only first-class desirable men, and that is the state and condition of the Council at the present time, and when a man has made a good record in this Council it is almost impossible for the organization in his ward to turn him down, but they are almost forced to accord him a renom- ination and he comes back to the City Council. Now Mr. Chairman, I think I can see that, in the first alternative we have the advantage of the main proposition. We have there the right to go before the people with candidates by petition, when they are presented at the direct pri- maries. We have the advantage of the main proposition and in the main prop- osition itself or in the alternative ; you also have the advantage of party or- ganization behind a desirable candidate. I don ’t think we have reached the point when we want to say that the only way to present candidates for nomina- tions for aldermen or 'for Mayor is by petition. We have not reached the point when we can afford to discard the ser- vices of party organization. I believe, moveover, and rather, that we should continue the effort within the party or- ganization to compel them to support good nominees; re-elect good aldermen. Retain the advantage that we have in party organization and not force men to seek the office by petition; to seek organization support outside of the reg- ular party organization, and to seek possibly in ways that should not be done that financial aid that is necessary in making a campaign. That is to say, Mr. Chairman, we ought to so legislate as to make it prac- tically impossible for the man repre- senting special interests; and the whole tendency of modern education, even in direct primaries, and by petition is against the man of unlimited means in politics. The whole tendency is to cut out and confine the avaricious, or those men who have means and can put up their campaign funds. Those are serious questions, and I don J t believe, Mr. Chairman, that we are ready to say that the only way the present needs is by petition alone. December 3 108 1906 This involves another question which was discussed in our Committee. It in- volves the question of the change in our ballot, if we nominate by petition only, so that we will have at the spring elec- tion one form of ballot to be voted, and in the fall another form. That is to say, if we nominate by petition only, and have a number of candidates, then a man must vote a ticket by voting for every candidate. He must be educated in that form o'f voting ; while, in the fall, he does not have to be educated in vot- ing. That is involved in the proposi- tion of nomination by petition alone. That question also was discussed in our committee, and upon that question there was a great deal of sentiment in our Committee. I think if we are going to abandon the present system, I think the next is the direct primary which will give us the nomination by petition as well as the party nomination. MR. POST : Mr. Chairman, I would like for the moment the question of per- sonal privilege, if there is going to be any further debate. THE CHAIRMAN: I didn't get your question. MR. POST : I wish for a moment a question of privilege. Do you propose to postpone this matter until a later date? If you are going to vote on this question now, — THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further debate on the question? MR. LINEHAN: I would like a word. MR. POST : Then I would like a word. I have got to leave the Convention to keep an engagement, which is a public engagement, and I wish- to make a re- quest of the Convention for my personal accommodation. There are three questions to follow soon, which I regard as of very great importance. I see no reason why they should not be passed until tomorrow so that I may participate in the debate, and so that I may be able to vote upon the question. I should like to vote aye for Mr. Rosenthal’s motion. The three questions I would like to have passed are that pertaining to the right of suffrage for women; I should like an opportunity to oppose the proposition as made by the report. I should like also an opportunity to oppose the question or proposition of holding spring elections in May. And I should like also the oppor- tunity to suggest an amendment to the question of the dismissal of the civil service employes. And if the Convention will accommo- date me to that extent, I will move that those three subjects be passed until to- morrow. MR. EIDMANN: I doubt very much whether we will be able to accomplish anything by that. It seems to me it is asking a great deal of this Convention to ask to have a number of subjects de'ferred from time to time. This ques- tion arose the other day, that matters be postponed, because one of the gen- tlemen had engagements. We have had engagements and we have had important committee meetings this afternoon, which we have simply shifted for the purpose of attending this afternoon. I don’t think this ought to be ground. MR. POST: It is very easy to vote my question down. MR. SMULSKI : Point of order. My point of order is that the question of personal privilege asked is not a ques- tion of personal privilege. THE CHAIRMAN : The point of or- der is well taken. The question now is upon the prop- osition to substitute number 1 for the first alternative to number 1. MR. LINEHAN : Mr. Chairman, I want to call your attention now to the fact that not a solitary objection has 1 been pointed out to the evils there would December 3 109 1906 be to the petition but what are in ex- < istence. You say the ballot will have to be changed. The man that was capable of voting the ballot at the last election is capable of voting a ballot at any elec- tion. THE CHAIRMAN: The secretary will call the roll upon Mr. Rosenthal’s motion to substitute. MR. THOMPSON: I would like to ask the Convention to adopt a rule that we take up these matters as they come. THE CHAIRMAN : The Convention adopted a policy of proceeding by a process of elimination. Are you talking to the question? MR. THOMPSON: My reason for bringing up this matter is this, that I have no desire to vote against nomina- tions by petitions, but I have not heard anything yet in this Convention that would convince me that the people are deprived of any rights when they are given the privilege of a direct primary; and, for that reason, I am of the opin- ion that a motion to substitute number 1 here for the first alternative is in con- travention of the rules of this Conven- tion, because it seeks to suspend the rules without going through the proper form; and I will make that point of or- der. And, for that purpose, Mr. Chair- man, I desire an opportunity to vote upon the matter of the people having retained direct primary. My point of order is that the motion to substitute number 1 for the first al- ternative is out of order. THE CHAIRMAN : The Chair rules the point of order not well taken. It is within the province of this Convention to substitute any section for any other. The secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Beebe, Beilfuss, Brosseau, Brown, Burke, Cole, Dever, Fisher, Guer- in, Lathrop, Linehan, McGoorty, Mer- riam, Owens, Raymer, Revel 1, Robins, Rosenthal, Rethness, Taylor, Vopicka, Werno — 22. , Nays — Baker, Bennett, Church, Crilly, Dixon, G. W., Dixon, T. J., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Hoyne, Jones, Kittleman, Lundberg, McCormick, McKinley, O’Donnell, Pendarvis, Pow- ers, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Sunny, Swift, Thompson, White, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 30. (During roll call.) MR. BAKER : A question o’f infor- mation. As I understand it, this is a motion to substitute number 1 for al- ternative number 1. Is that it? THE CHAIRMAN: The question is to substitute number 1 for the alter- native to number 1. MR. BAKER: Has there been pre- sented here or outlined any particular plan how these nominations by petition should be made? MR. SMULSKI: Simply a leap in the dark. MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think that is a fair statement of the question. THE CHAIRMAN: Pending the roll call, Mr. Fisher, you are out of order. MR. FISHER: I ask for information. As I understand it these resolutions are intended to merely state the general na- ture of the direct primary. MR. HOYNE: I don’t know exactly what we are voting on. THE CHAIRMAN: A motion was made, Mr. Hoyne, — MR. HOYNE: — to substitute num- ber 1 for the alternative? THE CHAIRMAN: To substitute number 1 for the alternative to num- ber 1. MR. HOYNE: I understood it was the other way. I vote nay. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon a motion to substitute, yeas, 22; nays, 30. The motion to substitute is lost. The ques- tion reverts to the original motion to adopt, — MR. ROSENTHAL: I move the fol- lowing substitute. This is really what December 3 110 1906 was passed by our Committee. It is stated in more general terms. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Rosen- thal — Elective city officers (with the ex- ception of aldermen) shall be nominated under a system of direct primaries. An alderman shall be nominated only by a petition of qualified voters. THE CHAIRMAN: You offer that as a substitute for what? For the pend- ing question? MR. ROSENTHAL: As a substitute for the alternative that is now before the house. THE CHAIRMAN: Substitute for alternative number 1 ? MR. ROSENTHAL: Number 1; yes, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal moves that this be substituted 'for alter- native number 1. MR. CHURCH: I rise to a point of order. It seems to me that substitute contains the very question we have voted upon, and has been lost. THE CHAIRMAN: No. Are you ready for the question? Call the roll upon the motion to substitute. Yeas — Beilfuss, Brosseau, Brown, Burke, Cole, Dever, Eckhart, J. W., Fisher, Lathrop, Linehan, McGoorty, Merriam, Owens, Rosenthal, Sethness, Taylor, Yopicka, Werno — 18. Nays — Baker, Beebe, Bennett, Church, Crilly, Dixon, G. W., Dixon, T. J., Eck- hart, B. A., Eidmann, Hoyne, Jones, Kittleman, Lundberg, McCormick, Mc- Kinley, O ’Donnell, Pendarvis, Powers, Raymer, Revell, Robins, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Sunny, Swift, White, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer —32. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the motion to substitute, yeas, eighteen; nays, thir- ty-two ; the motion is lost. The question reverts upon the adoption of the first alternative to No. 1. MR. FISHER: I suppose in the de- bate, it has not been advocated, and I don ’t suppose it is intended to exclude the independent nomination by petition. Now, so that the matter may be fully before the house, I move that the fol- lowing be added to alternative No. 1 now before the house, ‘ ‘ With appro- priate provision for indepednent nomi- nation by petition. ’ ’ THE CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen you have heard the motion; all those in fav- or signify by saying, aye ; those op- posed, no. All those in favor of the adoption of the alternative to No. 1 signify by saying, aye ; those opposed, no. MR. BENNETT: What is the amend- ment? THE CHAIRMAN: Will the secre- tary read the amendment as presented by Mr. Fisher? THE SECRETARY': By Mr. Fisher: “Add the following to alternative No. 1: ‘ With appropriate provision for in- dependent nomination by petition.” MR. SHANAHAN: Read it all. THE SECRETARY: “First alterna- tive to No. 1 as amended by Mr. Fisher: ‘ ‘ Elective city officers shall be nominated by direct primaries with appropriate pro- vision for independent nominations by petition. ’ ’ MR. WHITE: I suggest that that be received and printed in the minutes and taken up and discussed tomorrow. I am not ready to vote on that today. THE CHAIRMAN: Is it the desire o’f the Convention to put the entire al- ternative to No. 1 over until tomorrow? MR. WHITE: No; let the portion of alternative No. 1 that we have adopted stand; this is the amendment, which I think we should have at least a day to think about. THE CHAIRMAN: The question will be upon the suggestion as amended, upon the first alternative to No. 1. MR. SWIFT: Without the amend- ment? THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair was under the impression that the amend- ment had been adopted. MR. SHANAHAN: The amendment is merely the present law ; a man can run as independent if he has a certain December 3 111 9061 number of names to the petition. That is, under the general election law. THE CHAIRMAN : I presume Mr. Fisher wanted to be sure it would not be left out, so he put in the amendment. MR. FISHER: I wanted to be sure that when that came up for discussion, when we came to discuss these pro- visions we would have a chance to discuss them, because the present law provides for excluding the name of one nominated by petition if he is a man who has signed any petition at the primaries, or has voted at the primaries. The question is here for a second, and I think it should be dis- cussed, I don’t care particularly about discussing it now, but I don’t want to be foreclosed from the privilege of de- fending it. MR. SHANAHAN : I presume there will be an opportunity to defend it. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon the adoption of the first alternative to No. 1 as amended. The Secretary will please call the roll. Yeas — Baker, Beilfuss, Bennett, Bros- seau, Brown, Burke, Cole, Crilly, Dever, Dixon, G. W., Eekhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Fisher, Hoyne, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, Lundberg, McCormick, McCoorty, McKinley, Mer- riam, O’Donnell, Owens, Pendarvis, Powers, Raymer, Revell, Robins, Rosen- thal, Shedd, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Taylor, Thompson, Yopicka, Werno, White, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 44. Nays — Beebe, Church, Shanahan, Swift — 4. (During roll call.) MR. BEEBE: I desire to explain my vote. I believe as this is put it means a plurality direct primary, and that kind of a law in my judgment has never been successful in a large territory, therefore, I vote no. MR. COLE: Mr. Chairman, may I have the floor. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Cole. MR. COLE: If I can’t get a whole loaf, I believe in taking a half a loaf; I vote, aye. MR. FISHER : In explanation of my vote, I want to state that this is the best proposition for which this Conven- tion is now prepared to vote; therefore, I vote aye. MR. ROSENTHAL: I don’t under- stand this to be interpreted in the man- ner in which Mr. Beebe has interpreted it; I do not suppose that by voting aye, I am voting for a plurality direct pri- mary law, a mere plurality direct pri- mary law. MR. FISHER : That question is open. MR, ROSENTHAL: On the assump- tion that I am not voting for a mere plurality direct primary law in munici- pal elections, I am voting, aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the record so show. MR. SHANAHAN: On the theory that I am voting for a direct plurality primary law, I will vote, no. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the record also show that. MR, WHITE: Mr. Chairman, is it possible to call for the division of a sub- ject before a vote is announced on it? THE CHAIRMAN: No, sir; not pending roll call. MR. WHITE: Well, I wish to make this statement: I am in favor of a direct primary ; Mr. Fisher has voted upon an amendment I am not in favor of; perhaps the Chair will explain to a layman how he may understand how he is going to vote; I would like to vote against half of it and in favor of the other half. MR. SHANAHAN: Vote both ways? MR. WHITE: Well, I would like to vote for it; I will vote, aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the motion to adopt, forty-four yeas and four nays. The Chair assumes that the original is thereby disposed of. MR. ECKHART( B. A.): In view of the fact that a number of the delegates have left the council chamber, I will December 3 112 1906 now move that we adjourn until two 0 ’clock tomorrow. ME. JONES: May I have the floor for a second to make another motion be- fore that is seconded? MR. BURKE: I second the motion. THE CHAIRMAN: What is it? MR. JONES: I would like to have the floor to make a motion on another matter. THE CHAIRMAN: If Mr. Eckhart will hold his motion for the time, that is all right. ME, ECKHART: Certainly, I will. MR. JONES: I would like to call at- tention to this, this report of the rules committee on the subject of education, the eighteenth chapter, I notice on page nine of this small booklet — page 56, I should say; I notice that the report of the committee on education is practically the only report which is not reduced to the form of a resolution. The rules committee merely present that whole act which has been prepared by the Educa- tion Committee, which covers seven pages of this book; I wish to make a motion that that portion of the report relating to education be referred to the Rules Committee with instruction to pre- pare a resolution representing the dif- ferent propositions embodied in the re- port, and re-report it to the Convention at some future date. THE CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen, you have heard the motion. MR. TAYLOR: I object to that mo- tion; that is, I object to debating it at this stage of our proceedings. I think it is a question that is a very fair one, 1 think it is a question that may be de- bated, therefore, as Chairman of that Committee I object to it at this stage of this session. I would be very glad to discuss it at some other session, but not at the tail-end of this session. I be- lieve the motion to adjourn is in order. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Eckhart has withdrawn his motion to adjourn, as I understand it, to give Mr. Jones the floor. MR. ECKHART : I renew my mo- tion to adjourn now. THE CHAIRMAN : The matter is be- fore the house, Mr. Eckhart. MR. FISHER: I think it would be clearer to the Convention if I called their attention to the fact that the rea- son why that report was left there in that way was because it went so much into detail that to prepare these reso- lutions would be to prepare so many res- olutions that it would put all the rest of the matter before the Convention; and for that reason the preparing of these resolutions or alternatives — and that was the suggestion of the Commit- tee on Rules — that the Committee would recommend that the educational matter should be made a special order of bus- iness for some special session. It should be discussed as a whole, and it seems to me that the proper way to handle this matter is to take it up when we get to it. MR. ECKHART: In that connection, I desire to ask for the Committee on Rules, Procedure and Plan, that the subject under discussion be made a special order at a proper time, to be discussed then so that we may go into the details of it. MR. ROSENTHAL: In reference to this matter now before the house, I de- sire to submit this: 1 1 The only elective city officers not including the aldermen and municipal judges, shall be the mayor and city treasurer; the city treasurer shall be ex- officio city collector.” THE CHAIRMAN: That matter will go over until the subject is taken up for discussion; the question is upon the mo- tion to adjourn until two o’clock to- morrow. MR. BENNETT: I have an amend- ment which I wish to offer and have published, so that it be taken up at the next session. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read it, please. December 3 113 1906 THE SECRETARY: “By Mr. Ben- nett: The charter shall provide as fol- lows : “xxn. “5. SECTION . Nothing in this act shall be construed to, modify, impair or affect, or to confer upon the City Council power to pass any ordi- nance modifying, impairing or conflict- ing with, the provisions of Section 18, of an act entitled ‘An Xct to provide for the annexation of cities, incorporated towns and villages or parts of same to cities, incorporated towns and villages ’ approved April 25, 1889, or any provis- ion of any law of Illinois relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors or creating or defining criminal offenses or relating to the prosecution and punishment there- of, nor shall any amendment or addi- tion be made to the charter of the City of Chicago, except by the General As- sembly, by which this section or any part thereof shall, directly or indirectly, be abrogated, repealed or annulled. n THE CHAIRMAN : That will be pub- lished and taken up at the proper time. The Convention will now adjourn until two o’clock P. M. tomorrow. And the Convention stood adjourned to meet Tuesday, December 4, 1906, at 2 o’clock P. M. MEMORANDA. This memoranda indicates the various matters adopted by the Convention. (See page 50 and succeeding pages of the proceedings). II. CONSOLIDATION. 1. The corporate authorities existing at present for the government of the park systems of Chicago shall be abol- ished, and the management of the parks shall become a department of the city government. 2. The administration of the public school system of the City of Chicago and of the Public Library shall con- stitute departments of the city govern- ment. III. THE MAYOR. 1. The charter shall continue sub- stantially the provisions of the pres- ent laws regarding the qualifications and executive functions of the mayor. 2. The charter shall continue the provisions of the present laws regard- ing the relation of the mayor to the city council. Resolved, that it is the sense of this Convention that a clause be inserted in the charter designating a city official who shall act as mayor during the ab- sence or inability of the mayor. First Alternative to 2: b. The mayor shall have a right to a seat in the city council, but shall have no vote. He shall have the right to speak and present messages and intro- duce measures subject to the general rules of procedure of the city council. Second Alternative to 2: The charter shall continue the pres- ent provisions of the law regarding the relation of the mayor to the city coun- cil, except that he shall not preside at the meetings of the city council, but the city council shall elect its own presiding officer from its members. 3. The veto power of the mayor shall be as now prescribed by law. The following resolution on the sub- ject of The Mayor is still pending: 4. The term of office of the mayor shall be four years. Alternative to 4: The terms of office of the mayor shall be the same as that of the members of the city council. December 3 114 1906 IV. ELECTIONS. First alternative to 1: Elective city officers shall be nominated under a sys- tem of direct primaries, with appropriate provision for independent nominations by petition. Resolutions offered from the floor of the Convention, but not acted upon. BY MR. REVELL: Alternative to VI. The City Council. VI. THE CITY COUNCIL. 1. The charter shall provide for re- districting the city into sixty wards. 2. Each ward shall nominate candi- dates for aldermen, who shall be voted on by the entire city. 3. The terms of aldermen shall be four years. 4. One fourth of the aldermen to re- tire each year. 5. No alderman shall be elected to succeed himself. 6. The compensation of aldermen shall be at the rate of $5,000 per annum, and he shall have a secretary. 7. Aldermen shall give their entire time to serving the city as alderffien during the term for which they are elected. 8. Aldermen shall have offices in their respective wards at which they shall be found during hours to be determined by ordinance, or otherwise. BY MR. ROSENTHAL: As an amendment to Chapter IV. en- titled ELECTIONS. By adding the fol- lowing proposition numbered 6: 6. The only elective city officers (not including aldermen and municipal judges) shall be the Mayor and City Treasurer. The City Treasurer shall be ex-officio city collector. BY MR. BENNETT: XXII. 5. SECTION Nothing in this act shall be construed to modify, impair or affect or to confer upon the city council power to pass any ordinance modifying, impairing or conflicting with the pro- visions of Section 18 of an act entitled “An act to provide for the annexation of cities, incorporated towns and vil- lages or parts of same to cities, incor- porated towns and villages ’ ’ approved April 25th, 1889, or to any provision of any law of Illinois relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors or creating or de- fining criminal offenses or relating to the prosecution and punishment thereof, nor shall any amendment or addition be made to the charter of the City of Chi- cago, except by the General Assembly, by which this section, or any part thereof shall, directly or indirectly, be abro- gated, repealed, or annulled. PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1906 GUjtragn (Eljartrr (Ennurntimi Convened, December 12, 1900 Headquarters 171 WASHINGTON STREET TELEPHONE MAIN 4877 Milton J. Foreman Chairman Alexander H. Revell, . . Vice-Chairman M. L. McKinley Secretary Henry Barrett Chamberlin, asst. Secy ♦ ■ ' December 4 117 1906 PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Regular Meeting, Tuesday, December 4, 1906 2 O’clock P. M., in the City Council Chamber OFFICIAL RECORD Published by authority of the Chicago Charter Convention . THE CHAIRRMAN: The Conven- tion will come to order. The Secretary will call the roll. Present — Foreman, Chairman, and Badenoch, Baker, Beebe, Beilfuss, Ben- nett, Brosseau, Brown, Burke, Church, Cole, Crilly, Dever, Dixon, G.W., Dixon, T. J., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Fisher, Gansbergen, Guerin, Haas, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Line- han, Lundberg, MacMillan, McGoorty, McKinley, Merriam, O’Donnell, Owens, Paullin, Pendarvis, Post, Rainey, Ray- mer, Revell, Rinaker, Robins, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Snow, Swift, Taylor, Vopicka, Werno, White, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 55. Absent — Carey, Clettenberg, Cruice, Erickson, Fitzpatrick, Graham, Harri- son, Hill, Hunter, McCormick, Oehme, Patterson, Powers, Sethness, Smulski, Sunny, Thompson, Walker, Wilson— 19. THE CHAIRMAN: Quorum present. MR. SWIFT: Rising to a question of privilege, I note that unintentionally the gentlemen of the press recorded me as being opposed to a direct primary. I w r ish to state that on the contrary, I am greatly in favor of it, and so argued, but I was opposed to the amendment of- fered by Mr. Fisher, and I so voted. I would like to have it corrected in the records. THE CHAIRMAN: The records will so show it. MR. REVELL: I notice in the rec- ords a typographical error in connection with the amendment that I offered yes- terday, in regard to striking out the word “shall” and putting in the word “may.” In my notice, and later on again, they used the word “nay” in- stead of 1 1 may. ’ 1 THE SECRETARY: What page? MR. REVELL: It is in page 91. The last column on page 91, and the next page is the same. THE CHAIRMAN : Put in the word “may” instead of “nay.” December 4 118 1906 THE SECRETARY: It appears 1 1 may ’ ’ on page 92. MR. REYELL : It is there in the motion, and later on. Let it be looked over and later on insert the ‘‘may” instead of ‘ 1 nay. ’ ’ THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any further corrections or amendments. If not, the record will stand the record of the meeting of December 3. The first matter to come before the Convention is number 2 on page 52. MR. SHANAHAN: I desire to make a motion at this time. I move that sec- tion 10, on Revenue, and section 18, on Education, be made special orders for a time to be fixed by this Convention, in order that all the members of the Convention may have due notice of the subject to be under discussion, so that we may have a full attendance when these two matters are taken up for consideration. I think those are two of the most important sections in this charter, and every member should be permitted to vote upon them. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would suggest that revenue and education be made special orders for next week, tak- ing up the one first, and disposing of it, and then taking up the other on the succeeding days. Does that meet your views? It has been moved and seconded that the Revenue section of the pro- posed charter be made a special order for the first meeting of next week and that the educational section be taken up as a special order immediately after the disposing of the revenue section. The motion prevailed. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read Number 2, on Page 52, the upper left hand column. The Secretary read. MR. COLE : Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of that. THE CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and seconded. MR. WHITE: For information, Mr. Chairman, does that cover the printing the names on the ballot alphabetically, or what is the intention? MR. CHAIRMAN : I presume so. That is the method usually followed. MR. COLE: Alphabetically or alter- nately, or any way that you want it. That is a matter of detail. The only question which we have in hand now is the matter of principle itself. MR. JONES: I should like to offer an amendment that the consideration of this paragraph 2 be deferred until after we have disposed of paragraph 4. I make that motion for this reason: When we consider number 4 we shall determine whether or not the municipal judges shall be elected in the fall as at present, or in the spring. If they are elected in the fall, the ballot must necessarily conform to the general ballot for nation- al, state and county offices, and it will not be possible to have two systems of listing candidates upon that ballot. I would therefore suggest that this clause 2 be deferred until after we have dis- posed of clause 4. MR. COLE: Mr. Chairman, I sug- gest that that will straighten itself out. Any action that we take here will not want to be contrary ' to the law of the land. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon Mr. Jones’ motion or amendment, to defer consideration of this proposi- tion until number 4 is disposed of. Are you ready for the question? The motion was lost. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is lost. The question reverts upon num- ber 2. Is there any discussion of this section ? MR. SHANAHAN: I take it that if you adopt this section you do away with the party column on the official ballot, and also do away with the circle at the top of the party column. That the can- didates for the office of mayor will all be printed under the appellation Mayor, and all the candidates for city clerk under that of City Clerk. December 4 119 1906 THE CHAIRMAN : I presume that ’s the intention. MR. DIXON : I should like to ascer- tain, Mr. Chairman, if that would do away with any party name on the bal- lot. THE CHAIRMAN : I presume that ’s the intention. MR. FISHER: I don’t understand it in that light. I don’t understand that we are passing upon that question now. I think that it can be fairly said that all those who have taken up any discus- sion of the subject of ballot reform in recent conventions and in conferences of all kinds in regard to ballot reform are agreed upon the main proposition, name- ly, that in municipal elections, the party circle and the party column should be abolished, but there is a distinct division of opinion as to whether or not you should abolish the name of the party after the candidate, or an emblem indi- cating that he is the representative of a certain party. I understand that all are agreed upon the question that it is desirable that the candidate should be so placed that the voter should be able to make an intelligent choice, and any- thing which would aid him in that choice, such as the marking that John Jones is a candidate of the Democratic party and William Smith is the candidate of the Republican party — that should go on the ballot. There is a division of opinion there, and I don’t understand that we are crossing that bridge now at all. All that we are voting upon now is that the candidates shall be named on the ballot after the names of the office for which they are candidates, and we are to de- cide afterwards whether or not there should be a party designation. This, as I understand it, doe:> not mean to abolish parties. MR. SHANAHAN: Under this pro- vision, a man desiring to vote the Demo- cratic or the Republican tickets would be unable to do so unless he would go down on the ticket and select the can- didate of his party from each of the offices. MR. FISHER: Undoubtedly. As I understand it, if there were three candi- dates, John Jones, Democrat; William Smith, Republican, and John Johnson, Prohibitionist, they would all appear after the name of Mayor, and the candi- dates for City Treasurer would be simi- larly arranged, and the Aldermen will be similarly arranged and the voter will se- lect his candidates from the lists of the different offices and mark them accord- ingly. He will not put down one single mark covering the entire ticket, but he will mark each man that he is to vote for. THE CHAIRMAN: Alderman Snow. MR. SNOW : Mr. Chairman, this sec- tion — this motion — is intended frankly to prevent anybody who desires to vote a straight party ticket from achieving that result with the least amount of ef- fort to himself. As the ballot is now arranged, a man who desires to make a selection of candidates regardless of par- ty affiliation, is in a position to do so. There are, however, a large number of citizens — a large number of voters — as is shown in every election, who are per- fectly willing and content to accept the judgment of the nominating conventions or the nominating power of their party as to the qualifications of the man placed upon the ticket. If, in the judgment of any citizen, the Convention has made an error — has not nominated as good a man as he thinks should have been nomi- nated — under our present form of ballot, that citizen can exercise his right by marking upon that ballot, if he so de- sires, but there are a very large number of voters who are satisfied with the work of the Conventions, and it certainly strikes me that in arranging the ballot, there is no reason why an individual, or a large number of individuals, who desire to vote a straight party ticket, should not be given that opportunity. Now, it is true that they would get the same op- December 4 120 1906 portunity by going through all the names, provided a list is furnished which they knew contained the names of the candidates of their particular party, but the point which I make is that that ele- ment of our citizenship which desires to vote a ballot regardless of party affilia- tion can do it under the present law, and this is an unnecessary hardship to put upon that element who are simply con- tent to accept a party designation. To require them to go through the ballot, pick out all those who are the candi- dates of their party — to require them to take the necessary time to accomplish this result, may be desired, but it seems to me that the present system permits of this, and at the same time makes it pos- sible for those who are not so well pre- pared to differentiate — who are prepared to accept the candidates who have been nominated by the political organizations or by organized public sentiment — it gives them an opportunity to vote as they may be desirous of doing, with the least possible effort. For that reason, I shall oppose the motion to substitute. MR. COLE: I don’t understand that this motion does away with the party designation at all. It does do away with the party circle. The ticket could be arranged and in my estimation it would be a better way to arrange a ticket in which all of the naminees’ names will be under the different offices. You can have a column for the Republican, and after that the dif- ferent offices running along, and have one Democratic, and so on, so that a person can very easily see that any- one that wants to vote the straight party ticket can very easily do so, only those wishing to do so would have to mark the name of each candidate. It does away with the party circle, but not with the party designation. It may be so arranged * * * MR. PEND A R VIS: May I ask Mr. Cole a question? I should think that this does away with the party designa- tion. Don’t you think so? (Reads the resolution.) Under this resolution, if we adopted it, all the candidates for mayor would have to be in one column, under the name of mayor, and the aldermen under the name of aldermen. You could not possibly have on the ballot a designation for a Republican or Democrat. MR. COLE: You don’t necessarily have to have a column with their names there. You can have the designation there, calling them that. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any fur- ther discussion upon this proposition? MR. MERRIAM: The Australian ballot law was introduced into the United States some twenty years ago. The first law was adopted in the state of Massachusetts in the year 1888. The original Australian ballot law, as it was known in the country where it came from, provided for such a form of ballot as is here recommended. The Australian ballot law, as it came over here to us, provided for no party em- blem or column, and it has no party designation of any character. When this law was taken up by the various states, following the year 1888, in which the state of Massachusetts adopted it, within two years from that time, more than one-half of the states had adopted the principle of the Aus- tralian ballot. When it was adopted in this country it provided for a party circle or emblem and a party column. The party column is bad enough, using the party name, because there we would have also the party emblem, so that in the state of Maryland, for example, all that a Republican had to do was to mark his cross after the picture of Abraham Lincoln, which stood at the head of the Republican column, and all that a member of Tammany Hall has to do is to mark his ballot under a star, which stands for that organiza- tion. These things have never been December 4 121 1906 integral parts of the Australian ballot law, and they never should have been put in there. Judge Brown stated in a discussion of this question, a few days ago, that at the time that this law was adopted in the Illinois legis- lature the committee, of which he was a member, which was in charge of this law, were undecided whether or not they should wait until the next session of the legislature and get the law into proper form, or whether they should hurry it through with the party circle and the party column, and they de- cided that they should hurry the law through, and it was argued at that time in that committee that the proper thing to do was to get this law adopt- ed, — to adopt the principle of it, — and then in succeeding sessions it could be amended. It is some twenty years since that time, and it has not yet been amended. Apparently the state at large doesn’t care for it, but to my mind, for questions in municipal elections, it appears to me that there is a very dis- tinct demand and a strong public sen- timent for abolishing the party circle and the party column. This is not a novelty. It is not a new thing. Al- ready there are fifteen states where it is in operation. One-third of the states, comprising at least one-half of the population of the United States, have abolished it, and there the party circle or column are unknown. This is true in Massachusetts, in Iowa and in Minnesota, and in every case where the pa~ty circle and the party column have been taken off the ballot it has pro- duced a great development of inde- pendent voting. Now, there are gentlemen here who state that they favor at the top of the ballot a party circle, and the party column. With these gentlemen I differ decidedly. As I understand it, they have neither a party circle or a col- umn, and they are getting on very well. 1 .We ought not to be confused on this matter, and I warn the gentlemen of the Convention against being confused in the principle of this scheme. There are at least three ways in which this scheme can be arranged for. The bal- lot can be arranged in alphabetical or- der, or placing them in fixed order, placing one party first, or put in the parties, which is the practice that was followed in the last election. That is a matter of detail and can be arranged later. I am frank to say that we have been having altogether too much straight voting in cities, and I am will- ing to place these restrictions here, so that in our American cities we will have less straight party voting and a great deal more of independent voting. There is no difficulty whatever, for a man who wishes to vote a straight ticket to do it with the Massachusetts system. He can do so very easily. But the ballot, as it is now arranged, not only permits him to vote a straight ticket, but in- vites him to do so, and there is where the objections come in. If you want to preserve the principle of straight party voting in our municipalities, if we are satisfied with the principle of voting as it now stands is satisfactory, I should say vote this down. But, on the other hand, if you are tired of the straight ticket and want independent voting upon fair treatment and fair terms, with straight party voting, then I should say vote Yes. MR. ROSENTHAL: I understand that the only motion before the house is on the adoption of No. 2, para- graph 2. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon the adoption of No. 2 and the second paragraph, on the left-hand col- l umn of page 52. MR. ROSENTHAL: Then I have a substitute to that paragraph which I will produce and which I will ask the Secretary to read. This came from the Committee on Election, and I would like to speak for a moment on it. December 4 122 1906 THE CHAIRMAN : The Secretary will read the substitute. THE SECRETARY : ‘ ‘ The names of all the nominees for each office shall be printed on the ballot under the title of the office for which they are candi- dates in alphabetical order, and the designation of the party, if any, to which they belong.” MR. ROSENTHAL: I do not know whether this proposition as it came from the steering committee intended that the designation of the party should be given or not, but, at any rate, it was the sense of the majority of the Committee on Municipal Election that the party designation ought not to be left off. This is a means of identify- ing the men. But there is a wide dif- ference between placing all the candi- dates under the one-party column in a municipal election and simply designat- ing the party to which that candidate may hapen to belong. It seems to me that unless we pass a measure of this sort we are not making any progress in our municipal affairs. We have all agreed that party politics — pure party politics — as such, ought to be elimi- nated in municipal affairs. Then, if pure party politics, as such, ought to be eliminated in municipal elections, we ought to have municipal issues; and why not have a ticket issued in such a manner that the choice of the voter may be between the particular candi- dates and not simply between parties? And if it is a fact that a ticket framed as this ticket would be is not suited to the unintelligent voter, let us seek to disqualify the unintelligent voter, so that only the intelligent voter should be able to vote at the municipal elec- tion. The principle is well stated by Professor Merriam, that the circle never had any place in the Australian ballot system. At the time of the reform party in this city, and the Introduction of the Australian ballot system, it was never intended to put a circle at the head of a party column. The circle was there at the primaries, because it was insisted upon by persons who preferred their party before the coun- try, if I may put it that way. MR. COLE: I merely want to say that, as the mover of the original mo- tion, I am willing to accept the substi- tute, and I want to put myself on rec- ord as saying that the object is not to do away with the party method or the party name, but simply to do away with the circle. MR. SCHEDD: I offer a substitute to Mr. Rosenthal ’s amendment, that after the word ‘ ‘ Candidate ’ ’ we should introduce the words: “ Under their respective separate party column.” That would do, away with the circle, which seems to be objectionable, but it would not identify the party. It seems to me that doing away with the entire matter under the proposed plan would confuse the voter. I think this would eliminate the objectionable feature, and I propose the amendment. MR. SHEPHERD: I second the mo- tion of Mr. Shedd. That solves THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shedd, what is your motion? THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read Mr. Shedd ’s substitute for Mr„ Rosenthal ’s substitute. THE SECRETARY: “To No. 2. After the word ‘Candidates’ add ‘Un- der their respective party columns,’ so that the entire section shall read: ‘2. The names of all the nominees for each office shall be printed on the ballot under the title of the office for which they are candidates under their re- spective party columns.’ ” MR. RAYMER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask whether, in the opin- ion of Mr. Shedd if this were done, that the candidate would be labeled any less Republican or Democratic than he would if a circle was alongside the December 4 123 1906 name of the party. It does not seem to me that it would cure the situation very much, if that is what is desired. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any fur- ther discussion on this subject? MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I per- sonally wish that this substitute might be deferred until we voted on the en- tire matter. It seems to me that some of us are in the position we were in yesterday. Here are two different methods of carrying out a general prop- osition in detail. It may be if some of these learned gentlemen were to have a little more time to think about it they would find three of four other dif- ferent methods of doing it, and there would be some chance to have a choice. Here are two matters of detail thrust upon us without any consideration ex- cept this, which is, after all, a prac- tically impromptu debate. Would it not be better to withdraw the substi- tutes and see where we stand on the main proposition? As I understand the two substitutes, they are matters of de- tail, and I would like to have an op- portunity to consider the main propo- sition before we consider the details. MR. O’DONNELL: A little of the party history, probably, would be of some moment now. I had the honor of introducing in the House of Representa- tives in the legislature the Australian ballot law. That is a bill prepared by a committee here in Chicago. It was drawn under the lines of the Australian ballot law, pure and simple; that no circles, party designations, or anything of that character, will be upon it. The bill was referred, of course, to the Committee on Elections of the House of Representatives ,and there the question was taken up. We had a great many sessions, and then presented the bill, and this present Australian bal- lot law is the law drawn by the com- mittee. It seems that when the bill was introduced by myself, appeals were showered in from every section of the state, and the result was that the com- mittee drafted the present law; and the reason why the party circle was adopt- ed was particularly because of the length of the ballot, especially in presi- dential elections. That was the only reason that had been given at that time why the circle was placed at the head of the column, and the party des- ignation. Although theye were inclined to a party designation, to some extent the controlling thing was the length of the ballot. Now, in these municipal elections, I cannot imagine a city ticket that will contain more than twelve or fifteen names hereafter. You will have nine candidates for judges, a mayor and an alderman in a party column. It seems to me that it makes little difference whether you have a* circle at the top or not, where the number of candidates is so few that the voter can, with a great deal of ease, make an intelligent selec- tion. However, there are a great many of us here proud of our parties, and it would not do to eliminate them, prob- ably, from this proposed charter. But I cannot see, Mr. President, that it makes a great deal of difference. Now, I am inclined to favor the amendment offered by Mr. Shedd to the existing proposition. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you want to speak, Mr.. McMillan? MR. FISHER: It seems to me we have come to the crossing of the ways on this whole question of politics in municipal affairs. I do not think this Convention ought to pass on this mat- ter until it understands exactly what it is doing. If we vote in favor of the amendment of Mr. Shedd and vote down the original proposition, or the substi- tute of Mr. Rosenthal, we might as well understand now as at any other time that we are voting directly to perpet- uate party control of municipal elec- December 4 124 1906 tion^; that we are voting to permit national parties to be the controlling and dominating features in all munic- ipal elections. We have already voted in favor of the proposition that was involved in our first resolution under this head that elective city officers shall be nominated under the system of di- rect primaries. Now, the direct pri- mary, with all the improvements we can get into it, means in the end only one thing, and that is a party nom- inee. There are some gentlemen who believe that a party primary should be open to men who do not belong to the party. I am not one of those men. I am unable to see how any man has a right to vote at a party primary, di- rect or otherwise, who is not willing to state that he belongs to that party and ordinarily acs with it. The party primary is intended, to select nominees of that party as the party nominee, and it should not be controlled by men who do not belong to the party. Now, we have voted in favor of nomination by direct primaries, and independent nominations by petition. Now, having gone on record on that, if we add to that the proposition that we shall print nominees under some column — say, all the Republican nominees down one col- umn, and all the Democratic nominees in another column, you are absolutely perpetuating the control of municipal elections by national parties. It is true, as Alderman Snow has said, that a man can pick them out; he can pick out his candidate. But I would like to ask this Convention how many of you feel that you had a fair show in the last election in this city? It is pos- sible under the present law to pick out the candidate you desire to vote for, but the minute you have got a Repub- lican column, and a Democratic column, and a Prohibitionist column, and a So- cialist colmun, and a series of inde- pendents, and whatever other parties there may be in a city election, and no party designation, with or without a circle to it, the ordinary voter who goes into the polling booths is con- fronted with a pile of names, and he must either start in and mark those names right down the list, instead of putting his name in the circle at the top; he must pick out his candidates from them; and when he begins to pick them out, to mark Jones here, and Brown there, and Smith over here, why, he thinks: “I am jeopardizing my ballot. I never can get them all picked out from all over this sheet. ” I don’t say that all men will, but a large num- ber will. A large number of men are perfectly willing to exercise the suf- frage intelligently, but they are unwill- ing to take any chances of making a mistake on their ballot. They are apt to get confused in the manner of exer- cising their right. It seems to me we should decide whether we are in favor of having national parties in the city election, and having them dominate those elections in the future as they have in the past. If you vote in favor of Mr. Shedd’s amendment, you will have simply removed the possibility of making one mark in the circle at the top of the ballot paper. You still have the alternative of going right down the column. There is another intelligent method of voting in municipal elections. There was one suggested in the National Civic Federation in New York recently, in which there was a representative from cities all over the country. I have never heard at any such convention any individual advocating independent vot- ing at municipal elections who is not opposed to the principle of the party column and the party circle. As Mr. O’Donnell has well pointed out, I will assume that you are going to reduce the number of nominees. You will try to get the nominations in municipal elections few enough so that you will have no more blanket ballots such as December 4 125 1906 we had in the last election, if we can avoid it. Why not put in each place the names of the candidates with the party designation, if you wish; or the party emblem, if you wish, so that the common, intelligent man who wishes to exercise his right with intelligence, and has a fair degree of intelligence, will come to the ballot, in the booth, and say: 1 ‘Here are the candidates for mayor; I will intelligently pick out my candidate for mayor. " So that he won't vote for every Republican or Democratic nominee on the list, but will have to pick them out and at least read the names of the opposing candi- dates before he exercises his right. That will not be by the blanket bal- lot. You will give the man, if you adopt that law, a chance to vote intel- ligently with the independents, and not handicap him as he is now. For when a man comes in and simply marks the party ticket in the party circle, he sim- ply votes down one column marked with these nominations. Now, having adopted the principles of the party nomination — having adopted the prin- ciples of direct primaries — if you add this to it, if you make no change in it, in my judgment, you have taken no step whatever to improve election conditions in this city. Now, it is all very well to talk about parties. I believe in parties. I believe in parties that are intelligently formed upon some princi- ple upon which a party can be formed. As I said the other day, you will per- petuate the national parties. You have the republican party and the democratic party divided on the tariff question, and the free coinage of silver, and the maintenance of the gold standard, and on any one of these questions on which national parties are divided. When you go into the direct primary the republi- can party, which is an organization on the tariff question, is going to select a nominee for a municipal office; and in that direct primary, let us say, one- third, or two-thirds of the members of the party, believe in a certain policy, and the other two-thirds or one-third, as the case may be, do not believe in that certain policy. The two-thirds will win, but having won, the remainder of the party is left to vote for the nomi- nees on that primary on a municipal issue when the party lines were never formed on that basis at all. You are going to handicap the independent voter and simply perpetuate the control of municipal elections by national party lines; leaving party politics, as they have in the past, to control generally your municipal election. MR. WHITE: I move that we leave on the table the two substitutes until we have passed on the main proposi- tion. A MEMBER: I second that. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion of Doctor White to leave on the table the two substitutes until we have passed on the main proposi- tion. MR. WHITE: Until we have passed on the main proposition, so that we can vote on the matter intelligently. THE CHAIRMAN: You defer ac- tion on the two substitutes until a vote is taken on the main proposition. All those in favor of Doctor White's motion will signify by saying aye, opposed no; the secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Badenoch, Beilfuss, Brown, Burke, Cole, Crilly, Dixon, G. W., Dixon, T. J., Eckhart, B. A., Fisher, Guerin, Haas, Hoyne, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, Lundberg, McGoor- ty, McKinley, Merriman, O'Donnell, Owens, Pendarvis, Post, Raymer, Rev- ell, Rinaker, Robins, Rosenthal, Shan- ahan, Shepard, Snow, Swift, Taylor, Yopicka, Werno, White, Wilkins, Zim- mer— 41. Nays — Beebe, Bennett, Brosseau, Church, MacMillan, Shedd, Young — 7. December 4 126 1906 THE CHAIRMAN: The vote to de- fer the two substitutes until a vote is taken upon the original proposition is: Yeas 41, nays 7. The question is now upon the adoption of No. 2. MR. SHEPHERD: No. 2, in my judgment, should be voted down. It is part of the proposition that was yesterday voted down, and is incon- sistent with the scheme adopted yes- terday by this convention that nomi- nees shall be nominated by — under the direct primary system. In my judg- ment we adopted a wise and proper course yesterday. And if we are to nominate officers through the party organization, or some other organiza- tion, we should fix the responsibility — • the further responsibility — of placing them in the proper party column. THE CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion on the subject? MR. JONES: I wish to vote against this proposition; not alone from con- sideration of the merits of the ques- tion, but because I believe that it is a subject which should be governed by the general election laws of the state. | We have four different kinds of officers who are voted upon: National officers, state officers, county officers and mu- nicipal officers. I believe that this is a subject which should not be dealt with by this charter, but should be left for the legislature in making up the general election laws. I do not believe that we should have a party column for the fall elections, and the ballot arranged on the plan suggested by this proposition for city elections. Therefore, without referring to the question of the relative merits of the two plans, I shall vote in opposition to the proposition, because I believe that the whole subject matter should be governed by the general election laws of the state. MR. CHURCH: Mr. Chairman, I have had the idea that the chief object of the charter convention was to de- vise a plan for reform in the mu- nicipal government of Chicago, in re- gard to the consolidation of the vari- ous taxing bodies in the city; and shall consider the question of provid- ing some remedy for the City of Chi- cago. Now, it seems to me that the im- portance that some of the members of this Convention are making of this question of how our municipal officers shall be elected is apt to prove a stumbling block that may seriously im- pede the enactment of charter legis- lation in Springfield this winter. Now, I do not believe, and I am speaking from some experience that I have had in the Illinois General Assembly — I do not believe that charter legislation can be passed there for the City of Chi- cago, regardless of the fact that it does not affect other municipalities in the state; it makes no great sweeping changes in election arrangements. I believe other gentlemen present here who have had some experienc in the legislature, will bear me out in this statement — that we have got to have the votes of the country members be- fore we can pass this charter legis- lation; and the country members in the legislature are very strong on the question of party organization. That is something that we have had to contend with continuously, and with that feeling of antipathy that exists to a certain extent beween the city and the country, we are going to run up against something there that I be- lieve will seriously impede us in se- curing charter legislation. To me it seems that it is a less important ques- tion than the securing of this charter legislation. I believe the best thing to be done is to leave our party law alone; otherwise, we shall be making a mistake. MR. ROBINS: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Robins. MR. ROBINS: In favoring the pro- December 4 127 1906 position that is before the Convention at this time I take an entirely dif- ferent view and wish to speak from a different point of view, and only be- cause of that shall I take up the time of the Convention with my remarks. I believe that the permanence of a party organization in the state and the nation is secured. They are here because they are needed. They will remain. I am for this proposition for just the reason that the city election in the spring, if it adopted now, under the party column provision, that be- fore the election shall be held the party organization in so far as needed will be maintained. The thought I had in mind is this: The old break in American politics was on political questions. The pres- ent break in politics is on industrial questions. I suggest to my friends who are interested in the maintenance of party organization that they grease the way for the rise of a new party in American politics, and for its domina- tion in the great industrial cities. I speak of the socialist party. That is the party that can count 30,000 votes in the last election when there was a great division upon the necessity for separating one candidate from another in the matter of the municipal court. That is the party that can hold its strength in a few years to the extent of 30,000 votes in our city; promises to grow steadily and with the progress of the nation and the development of education in the working classes to throw into that party the discontented and it will be effective simply by voting for the socialistic. We have seen it rise. Some of you may discount the view that it is a growing opinion in our cities, in the larger cities everywhere, not to be especally regarded in national politics anywhere; but to be merely regarded by the intelligent and faithful men, who observe the course of affairs in great industrial cities, as a light mat- ter. Now I suggest to the gentlemen here that you are preparing a way in main- taining the party, in municipal elec- tions, to throw the First Ward and ulti- mately the City of Chicago into the control of the socialist party. And while you may think that that is a far and remote contingency, I say to you that it is not as remote as it might be. When you break up party organiza- tion with your municipal ticket and pre- serve organization for your county, state and national ticket, you will pro- tect your party in a part only. When you maintain your classification in your city politics, you pave the way for the rise in power and control of a party organization more compact that your own; more unreasoning than your own; more passionate than your own; more certain to vote for the principle, as they say, than for the man; utterly regardless of the man; tremendously enthusiastic on the principle, and you give it the strongest possible way of expression in your party. And for that reason I am opposed to it. MR. COLE: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cole. MR. COLE: I want to speak and emphasize this fact; I want to warn these people here that if they confine the issues of the City of Chicago to the national party issues it will be detrimental. MR. SHEDD: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shedd. MR. SHEDD: I wish to submit to this Convention that when I cast my ballot for a candidate on municipal election, I do want to know by some method the party to which he belongs. I want to know whether he is a re- publican or democrat, or whether he is a socialist or whatever he may be. I want to vote intelligently, and I believe that the easy and intelligent December 4 128 1906 way for the people of this city to vote is by voting a party column; in a circle at the top of the paper so that when a voter comes to look over the ballot he can easily determine from the position of the party on the ballot which party a large majority of the candidates belong to for which they wish to cast their ballot. I submit that probably a large majority of people who voted at municipal elec- tions have for the last one hundred and will for the next two hundred years be guided by their respective parties. Every voter wants an easy method of separating out and voting for the candidates whom he prefers. It seems to me that in passing the second clause here; that simply tends to confuse rather than simplify the method of voting, and I agree with the gentleman who spoke second before me that to go to the legislature with a new sys- tem, an entirely new system of an arrangement of candidates at munici- pal election, will utterly fail; and it will be a very large matter for us to bring before them. I am thoroughly opposed to the printing of the candi- dates on the ballot in any other way. ME. McGOOETY: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. McGoorty. MR. McGOOETY: I agree with Mr. Shedd. If it is both desirable to have a ballot that makes it easiest and most certain for the voter to vote, that is the ballot to be adopted. I have before me a copy of the Massa- chusetts ballot. There the candidates are arranged under the office for which they are to be elected with the party designation following the names and a square following the party designa- tion. I submit that that is the easiest and simplest form of ballot that can be devised. When we consider the sort of the ballot used at the last general election, the necessity of one who desires to vote for the individual rather than for the party to read the names from right to left over that entire ballot, it is Very hard, and harder than to take a ballot like this one where the candi- dates for governor are all in one group and the voter sees at a glance that John Smith is the democratic candidate and that John Brown is the prohibition- candidate and so on; and he can speedily and readily designate his choice for that office and so on for the other offices. Now that is no radi- cal change. There is no disillusion about that. I agree with Mr. Church that this Convention should not make any recog- nition or formulate any plan that rwo.uld make for any opposition by the general assembly; but I am not willing to admit that the intelligence of the general assembly of Illinois will balk and say in advance that they will defeat a proposition which is tended to preserve the integrity of party organization; and I do not think it would be any more likely to do that in the State of Illinois than it would in Massachusetts or other states. And this is to enable the party voter to vote conveniently and to intelligently exercise his right of franchise by sim- plifying the ballot. The whole movement toward a re- formed election has among other things the idea to lessen the number of candidates. Now if we cannot at one step materially lessen the number of candidates we can at least make it so that the voter can vote for whom he chooses. I was surprised to hear of one of the leading members of the Chicago Bar, who said, at his club, after some reflection, that he had decided to vote his ticket straight lest it be lost and cast aside as an improper ballot. I agree with the suggestion in the amendment made by Mr. Rosenthal that I the party designation should follow I the name. I think that was implied December 4 129 1906 in the main proposition upon which we argued before. We desire simplic- ity, and we desire to make it so that the voter can cast his ballot according to his wishes. ME. CHUECH: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIEMAN: Mr. Church. You have spoken once on the subject. ME. CHUECH: I want 4;o say just one thing on this subject. A MEMBEE: I ask that he be given consent. THE CHAIEMAN: It must be by unanimous consent. A MEMBEE: Let him speak. ME. CHUECH: The question that has come into my mind is this: There is in this city a commission that has been authorized to select voting ma- chines for the City of Chicago. Now, if this change is made in our law in regard to our municipal election in the spring we are face to face with this ob- jection: I understand voting machines are to be adopted very soon. We have a machine than can be used at the spring election, but cannot be used at the fall election if we change the form of the ballot. This is a serious thing and I think this con- vention ought to take it into con- sideration. If we take some of these machines they cannot be adapted to the form of ballot suggested, and the machine that is made for the Aus- tralian ballot fails to be of service when we use this other form of ballot. ME. FISHEE: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIEMAN: Mr. Fisher. ME. FISHEE: Eeferring to what Mr. Church has said I think he is mis- informed. I have been informed by men who have given attention to the voting machines that that is what it will do. There is a form of voting machine that does not permit of the thing contemplated in the resolution No. 2. But there is a form of voting machine that will permit of voting for the candidate under the name and under the party, too. There is a diffi- culty in building these voting machines to enable the voter to vote the straight party ticket in the column and also vote independently. There is no diffi- culty about that kind of a machine being used under the resolution. THE CHAIEMAN: Is there any further discussion. A VOICE: Question. THE CHAIEMAN: If not, the sec- retary will call the roll upon the adop- tion of No. 2, and will read the sec- tion to be voted upon. The secretary read section 2 as it appears at page 52 in the proceedings. Yeas — Badenoch, Beilfuss, Brosseau, Burke, Cole, Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Fisher, Gansbergen, Guerin, Lathrop, Linehan, Lundberg, McGoorty, McKinley, Merriam, O’Donnell, Owens, Post, Eainey, Eevell, Eobins, Eosen- thal, Swift, Taylor, Vopicka, Werno, White, Zimmer — 29. Nays — Beebe, Bennett, Brown, Church, Crilly, Dixon, G. W., Dixon, T. J., Haas, Hoyne, Jones, Kittleman, MacMillan, Pendarvis, Eaymer, Eina- ker, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Snow, Wilkins, Young — 21. THE CHAIEMAN: Upon the mo- tion to adopt No. 2 the vote stands yeas 29, nays 21; and the resolution is adopted. ME. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I offer this resolution that the candidates’ names be printed after the party’s name. THE CHAIEMAN: The next thing, I believe, would be the reading of Mr. Eosenthal ’s substitute covering the same ground that General Young’s mo- tion covers. The secretary read Mr. Eosenthal ’s resolution as printed hereinbefore. ME. EOSENTHAL: I move it be adopted. THE CHAIEMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion by Mr. Eosen- thal that it be adopted. All those in December 4 130 1906 favor signify by saying aye; those op- posed no; the ayes have it, and it is so ordered. That disposes of Mr. Shedd’s motion. The secretary will read No. 3. The secretary read No. 3 as it ap- pears at page 52 of the proceedings. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. White. MR. WHITE: I desire to make a motion to strike out the word “no” in the first line and substitute the article “a.” THE CHAIRMAN: What is the amendment? MR. WHITE: I have not the paper before me, but I think I am correct. I move to amend by striking out the word “no” in the first line and sub- stituting the article “a.” THE CHAIRMAN: The effect of that would be to make the proposition an affirmatve one. MR. WHITE: That is the object. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the amendment offered by Dr. White. MR. BENNETT: I move to lay the substitute on the table. THE CHAIRMAN : It appears to the Chair that this matter will have to be voted on at some time as to whether it is to be a negative or an affirmative resolution; but if the gen- tlemen want the roll called on the mo- tion to lay it on the table I will have it called. I will call upon the secretary to call the roll. MR. BENNETT: I rise to a point of order. It need not be voted on in that matter. MR. POST: The president of this Convention has already ruled that a motion to lay on the table does not cut off debate. THE CHAIRMAN : That is correct, sir. MR. POST: The motion I wish to offer, and which I wish to speak on for a moment before the general de- bate opens, in case this motion is treat- ed as it is, is that the clause regard- ing suffrage for women be put off until a later date, until as soon as you please, and that the president invite women interested in the subject to ad- dress the Convention at that time. THE CHAIRMAN: Will you let the secretary read the resolution? Resolved, that the clause regarding suffrage for women be made a special order for a session to be held Decem- ber, 1906, and that the president invite women interested in the subject to ad- dress the Convention at that time on this question. MR. POST: Mr. Chairman, I notice the Convention has reached the con- clusion on some subjects that it should set certain things for a certain time and have persons interested in that subject invited to address the conven- tion and discuss that in person, and to participate in the discussion with the convention. This subject, it seems to me, is as important as either of the other questions and as deserving of that kind of consideration. I beg to remind the convention that when the people of this city sent lead- ers of this city to try and get an amendment to the state constitution under which action such as we propose might be taken, that the women of this community were called upon to assist in procuring the adoption of that amendment by the people, and that the women of this city who are in favor of women’s suffrage responded to that request; and I think it is not stating too much to say that if it had not been for the action of the women in this community who are in favor of women’s suffrage, we would have no occasion for taking up this question today because no satisfactory amend- ment would have gone to the legisla- ture and we would not have had the opportunity. As I look over the list of this convention I do not see a single December 4 131 1906 woman here representing anything, and no representative whatever of any woman or their rights. I say, Mr. Chairman, that the women who favor the suffrage should be given an opportunity to be heard. I do not think that it would be proper to pro- ceed without hearing them. I have reason for believing they may have practical resolutions. I believe that because the committee which had that subject under consideration, and which has reported to this Convention, did get the women of the city to appear. Their representative women appeared before that committee, and as a re- sult of the discussion that they pre- sented, at least one convert on that committee was made to women's suf- frage for municipal purposes. If women appear before this convention, they may have similar results and may finally determine the action of the con- vention. I might say in addition to that, that the committee which re- ported on this subject, and which re- ported the resolution as it now stands, that there should be no women's suf- frage provided for in the charter, was almost equally divided. The vote was, as I remember it, five for this resolu- tion and four against it. Now under those circumstances I submit that we should not take up this matter this afternoon, and go on with the discus- sion to the exclusion of the women of this community who ought to be heard and who have earned the right to be heard on this question. MR. B. A. ECKHART: Mr. Chair- man. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Eckhart. MR. B. A. ECKHART: I do not op- pose the resolution fixing a day upon which this subject shall be discussed; but I do object to that part of the resolution which provides that the women shall be heard upon the subject in this Convention. The subjects that are under consider- ation by this Convention have been in the hands of a standing committee now for about a year, or perhaps, more than that, and I understand that the women were given an opportunity to be heard before the committee that considered this specific subject, and therefore, I think that they have said perhaps all that they desire to say. That committee was very able, and they, no doubt, will be able to present their views upon the floor of this Convention. If you accede to the request voiced by Mr. Post, that the women be heard, then the people who are interested in the revenue measure that has been made a special order, will undoubtedly wish to be heard. The people who are in- terested in the matter of education will undoubtedly desire to be heard, and what does that lead to? It will lead to this, that you will be in session here for three or four months, and will not be able to come to any conclusion and reach the legislature in time for the legislature to act. I think it would be a mistake to open this Convention to everyone who desires to be heard upon any subject, and that is what you would have to do if you would accede to the request of Mr. Post. I am heartily in favor of fixing a day and hour when this subject may be dis- cussed, but I do not believe you ought to throw the Convention open to the women or anyone else on this subject. MR. COLE: As one who favors fe- male suffrage, and expects to vote for it, I think the best way is to take up Mr. Post's motion now. I think the speeches should be confined to five min- utes, and we can take a vote, and have it out of the way. MR. O'DONNELL: The motion of Mr. Post should be divided. I feel that Mr. Post is speaking as a foremost rep- resentative on this question here, and I think that his request ought to be en- titled to some respect at the hands of December 4 132 1906 the Convention. It is an important sub- ject, and ought to be set down for a day and hour that will allow the Conven- tion to talk about it. ME. POST: Now is the accepted time. MR. O’DONNELL: I am not op- posed to opening up the door, and allow- ing the women to come in again. They were before our Law Committee, and the Committee on Elections, and they had their day in Court — also, before the Committee on Education, too. The ques- tion is divided. MR. POST : I will accept the THE CHAIRMAN: Does Mr. Post agree to divide the motion? MR. POST : Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: The present question before the House is to set the discussion of the question of women ’s suffrage for some day certain in the fu- ture. MR. BADENOCH: I want to say that I am informed that the women have appointed a day for a public meet- ing to which the members of the Conven- tion will be invited, and I think it is eminently proper, as certain statements with reference to woman’s suffrage have been made in the press, and if the women desire an opportunity to answer, they should have it. MR. RAYMER: For the purpose of bringing this matter before the Conven- tion, as to whether we shall thresh it out now, or later, I move that the propo- sition to set a date for a hearing of this question be laid upon the table. MR. FISHER: It seems to me we can accomplish the same purpose that Alderman Raymer has in mind by vot- ing on the proposition. It is not nec- essarily encumbering the parliamentary proceedings — THE CHAIRMAN : The procedure of this house has robbed a motion to lay on the table its significance or value. MR. FISHER: I want to say as a representative of this Convention who has not made up his mind on this ques- tion, that I am in favor of the first part of Mr. Post’s resolution. As everybody else at this Convention, I have been in receipt of an immense amount of liter- ature from the advocates of woman’s suffrage in the municipal election, and personally I can see arguments both pro and con. I understand that Mr. Bade- noch has correctly stated the situation when he says that the women have de- sired an opportunity to be heard. They have so communicated their desire to me, and I understand they communicated their desire to the Committee on Elec- tions, before whom they appeared, and that failing to grant that request, they intend to have a meeting where they are going to invite the members of this Convention, and where those who wish may go, and those who do not wish, need not go, but all who wish can attend that meeting. It seems to me that it would be a wise thing for all of the members of this Convention to hear what the women wish to say if the hour and place fixed for that meeting is a con- venient one. It would be wise for us to postpone action on that account. There is that particular reason for it. In addition to that, this is a very important mat- ter, as Mr. Post has said, and I think that every member of this Convention ought to be notified that we are going to vote on that question at some par- ticular date in the future — come here with some definite expectation that he is going to vote pro or con on that proposition. It seems to me this matter should fol- low the method we have adopted with reference to education and revenue, in both particulars, namely, that we should set a day, and also that we should not open the door to outside representation. It would give us an opportunity to hear what the women have to say on this subject. December 4 133 1906 MR. YOPICKA: It seems to me that the motion of Mr. Post is right. We should not be in a hurry to pass upon this question which is of such enormous importance. I know that a great many members of this Convention are in fa- vor of allowing the ladies to vote for school trustees. On the other hand, they are not in favor of giving them the en- tire right to vote. I believe, Mr. Chair- man, that if we postpone action on this matter, we will not lose anything by it, and we can get through with the school question, and so forth. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is on Mr. Raymer ’s motion to table Mr. Post’s motion to fix a date certain for the discussion of this subject. Yeas — Baker, Beebe, Beilfuss, Ben- nett, Brown, Burke, Cole, Crilly, Dixon, T. J., Eckhart, J. W., Haas, Hoyne, Lathrop, Lundberg, McKinley, Raymer, Shanahan, Shepard, White, Young — 20. Nays — Badenoch, Brosseau, Church, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Fischer, Gansbergen, Guerin, Jones, Kittleman, Linehan, MacMillan, McGoorty, Mer- riam, O’Donnell, Owens, Paullin, Pen- darvis, Post, Rainey, Revell, Robbins, Rosenthal, Shedd, Swift, Taylor, Vo- picka, Werno, Wilkins, Zimmer — 30. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is whether the subject of women’s suf- frage should be referred to some date certain, on Alderman Raymer ’s motion to lay that motion on the table. The “yeas” have 20 and the “nays” thirty. The motion to table is lost. The matter will be deferred — take its place with the two other matters that have not been disposed of. Our next question is on the second part of Mr. Post’s motion, that the question should be open for discussion by members of the Woman ’s Suffrage Association. MR. SHEPARD: I move that be laid on the table. The motion prevailed. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will now read No. 4. The secretary read No. 4 as it appears in the proceedings at page 52. MR. LINEHAN: It strikes me that the time, around the first of May, dis- franchises a lot of people that may want to vote. If they have to vote on the first Monday in May, you would see that they would not have thirty days’ residence in the Ward or District. I think it would be better, perhaps, if that was the first Monday in June; however, it may be that those who are responsible for the insertion of the amendment are able to make an ex- planation that is satisfactory. MB. BEEBE: Hasn’t the Secretary read just one section too much, there? Isn’t there but one alternative to A? Should not the alternative be taken up first ? THE CHAIRMAN: I think that is correct. Mr. Beebe suggests that the alternative to A should be taken up be- fore B. They appear to be two differ- ent propositions. THE SECRETARY: Yes, they are. THE CHAIRMAN: Of course, they hang together. What will you do with the alternative to A? MR. COLE : I would like to ask somebody that is in favor of that to explain why alternatives to A should be adopted — why the judges of the Mu- nicipal Court should be elected in the fall rather than the spring? THE CHAIRMAN: My understand- ing was that it was the desire that all municipal officers should be elected at the same time. MR. FISHER: I remember what the discussion was in the Sub-committee and the Committee on Rules about that. The Committee on Rules adopted the first proposition, which I understand was also the recommendation of the Commit- tee, namely, that the election of all city officers should be held in the spring. The que&tion thereupon arose with the Committee whether or not that should include the Municipal Court judges, and December 4 134 1906 the objection to it was only this, that that would involve an amendment of the Municipal Court Act at this time, and it was thought it would perhaps be bet- ter to let the Municipal Court Act have a trial before we amended it. We thought that to amend the Act might open up the whole subject of the Mu- nicipal Court Act, and that it was not advisable at this time. I am merely stating this to advise the Convention as to what led to the adoption of that al- ternative resolution. Personally, I think it would be pos- sible to adopt the motion without amend- ing the whole act, but there are mem- bers of the legislature, perhaps, better qualified to speak on that than anybody else. The amendment would be a very simple one, merely changing the election of Municipal Court officials to the spring, and not at the time of the state, county or national elections. Personally, as I now stand, I am in favor of the original proposition. MR. COLE: May I ask Mr. Fisher a question? THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly. MR. COLE: Suppose we should adopt one resolution that the Municipal Court judges should be elected in the spring, isn ’t it a fact that we have two ses- sions of the legislature before the elec- tions? MR. FISHER : Yes. MR. COLE: Then it would not clash in that case. MR. SHEPARD: I understand the first alternative to A is now before the Convention for adoption. It seems to me that this Convention should adopt that alternative to 4-A; that is, that all municipal officers and city officers, including the Municipal Court judges, shall be elected in the spring. If it is not before the Convention, I move the adoption of alternative to A. That is the only way it is designated in the minutes. THE CHAIRMAN: A of No. 4. The Secretary will read alternative to A. The Secretary then read the alterna- tive to A of No. 4, as it appears in the proceedings at page 52. MR. SHEPARD: That is the clause in favor of which I rise to speak, Mr. Chairman, and in a word, the proposi- tions are these: The legislature has already covered the subject of Municipal Court. I think we could wisely leave that to work out, and leave it to the newly elected Mu- nicipal Court judges and officers and members of the legislature to ascertain in that work-out what changes, if any, are desirable, and not go back and try to re-hash the question of charter amendments covering Municipal Courts at this time. In the second place, we should keep, as far as possible the election of our judges removed from the election of other officers. That does not obtain ex- actly at the present time, but the first resolution contemplates that city judges shall be elected at the same time other city officers are elected. The 1870 constitution provides that Circuit Court judges shall be elected in June, and there is no possible way to change that except by amendment to the constitution. That provision of our con- stitution has always found favor among all classes of people, members of the organizations in this state, and obtains today. It might be wise in the future to change the date of election of the Municipal judges to some date in June, or at some other time when the county officers, or state officers, or city officers are not elected, but I deem it unwise to place the nomination or election of Municipal judges at the same time you would elect your city officers. Instead of the public mind being then focused on the personnel of the candidates for those judgeships, they would go through probably with the head of the ticket, December 4 135 1906 and those names under the candidate who favored some public measure would t>e swept into office, and perhaps they would be men of inferior qualifications to those on some other ticket. In my judgment, we should adopt that clause in A, or adopt A as a whole, pro- viding that the election of Municipal officers should be held in the spring ex- cept the election of Municipal judges. I strongly favor this proposition. MR. BENNETT: There is much force in what Mr. Shepard has said upon this subject. There is one question that arises in my mind, and that is this: We are proposing to specify the manner of holding Municipal elections of Munici- pal judges and Municipal officers. If we are going to have one form of elec- tion for Municipal judges for the city election under which these municipal elections shall come, and the same elec- tion we have another election law and another form for the other candidates the question arises whether there will not be considerable confusion created thereby. If the Convention decides upon separating the Municipal officers from the Municipal Court care should be taken that the Charter does not conflict with the present Municipal Court law providing for their election. MR. PENDARVIS : Since the report of the Committee on Rules, Procedure and General Plans has been submitted to the Convention, the Committee on Municipal Court has had this matter under consideration, and has acted. I don ’t know whether that action has been reported to the Convention or not, but the action was to this effect, that the committee would not recommend to the Convention any action looking to a change in the Municipal Court Act, with one exception, and deferred action until some later date to receive any sugges- tions that might be made by the judges of the Municipal Court after it had been in operation for some time. Now, it seems to me that there are two or three things that this Convention ought to consider in determining whether or not to ask the legislature to amend the Municipal Court Act. The question of the time of the elec- tion of these judges was very long and very carefully considered by the last General Assembly. It was debated from almost every standpoint, and everything that has been suggested here today was carefully considered by the committees that had this legislation under consid- eration. The bill as it originally came into the House and Senate provided for the elec- tion of all these judges at one time, in June, on the same date that the judges of the Circuit Court are chosen. In the House it was considered that that date would be unwise for two or three reasons. One reason was that it would be unwise to take the chance of hav- ing the full bench go off at one elec- tion, and in the second place, it provides for the election of twenty-eight judges of the Municipal Court at one time, and for six years on the same date of four- teen judges of the Circuit Court, mak- ing it necessary to choose forty-two judges upon one date, with the possi- bility under the law of having the Mu- nicipal Court judges increased by nine. After due consideration, it was de- cided in the House Committee that inas- much as these officers were city or Mu- nicipal officers, they should be elected in the spring, but should not be chosen, any of them, in the year that the may- oralty was at stake. In order to avoid changing the full bench at one time, they were divided into three classes, as the law now stands. The bill was so recommended at that time by the committee and so passed the House. In the Senate it was changed to the fall and when it got into the conference com- mittee, the only two dates that were considered were fall and June. December 4 136 1906 Now, Mr. Chairman, by the action of this Convention, and by the bill passed subsequently by the House, the term of office of the mayor was extended to four years, so that it is impossible to provide for the election of these offi- cers in the spring without bringing every other election at the same time that the mayoralty was at stake. I felt then and I feel today that it would be unwise, notwithstanding these officers are city officers, that they should be involved in any of the local issues that may arise when the mayor is to be chosen, and for that reason I am in favor of the alter- native proposition, that the Municipal Court judges should not be selected on the same date as the other city officers. ME. McGOORTY : As Mr. Pendarvis has said, the House was overwhelmingly in favor of the bill, and it went to the Senate, and it was frankly admitted at that time that actuated by political con- siderations alone, the provision as passed by the House was changed so as to cause the election of the Municipal Court officers in the fall. It was not placed upon any high ground, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Convention, but simply on political grounds alone. How- ever partisan we may feel upon ques- tions that are wholly political, I believe that everyone that is interested in good government and interested in the per- petuity of our institutions, favors tak- ing the judiciary out of politics. In the state of Wisconsin, and in many other states, that has been done absolutely, and the constitution of New York was amended in that regard, — for the sole purpose of taking the judiciary out of politics. I believe that if this question were submitted to the electorate of this city, the vote would be ten to one, at least, in favor of the proposition. I do not believe this is a question that should be left to the Municipal bench, with all respect to the present judges. Questions of practice and procedure are questions that m?iy come from that Court properly, but this question is a question for us to decide, and there can come no more important questions before this Charter Convention than whether or not the judiciary shall be made the foot- ball of politics, or placed upon a higher plane, and that we should see, at least, that our judges, the men that are called upon to interpret the laws, should pro- tect the mighty as well as the lowly, the poor as well as the rich, and that those men shall be chosen .for considerations other than political, and because of their individuality, because of their character, and their standing in this community. Therefore, Mr. Chairman and gentle- men of this Convention, I think this Convention should stamp its impress of approval upon the principle that the judiciary should be taken out of politics. MR. COLE : I should like to ask this question: If the clause should pass that all the officers should be elected in the spring, would not a proper inter- pretation be that it could be done in June? Would not June be considered a spring month under those circumstances? MR. McGOORTY : No, not the way the section reads. I speak of the origi- nal bill providing for the election in the spring. Objection was made that be- cause of the expense it would be better to hold the election in April. The fur- ther objections were made that the is- sues involved in the mayoralty cam- paign were extraneous to judicial mat- ters. It provides that judges should be elected in even number of years, so that it could never happen that the mayor should be elected the same time as a Municipal Court judge. If this proposition passes and the law becomes in force the next election of Municipal judges would be two years from now, or in other words, in the spring of 1909, and 1911, and so on. So that the objection urged by Mr. Pen- darvis is untenable for that reason. December 4 137 1906 MR. PENDARYIS: What objection? MR. McGOORTY : That we change the term from four years to two years. Therefore, a time would come when they would be elected at the same election. It was provided that the election for mayor shall be in 1907 and again in 1911. MR. PENDARYIS: Then you would have the election of Municipal Court judges? MR. McGOORTY: Not at all. If we amend that so that the next election of judges will be in 108 or 1910, it will come in the years only when the aider- men are elected. It was solely on the ground of economy and saving of ex- pense. MR. SHANAHAN: As Mr. Fisher stated, this alternative was submitted by the Steering Committee at my sugges- tion, for this specific reason. The last session of the legislature passed a mu- nicipal court act. It was submitted to the people of Chicago,' and approved, and under its provisions, judges have been elected. Now, if you want to change any part of the municipal court act in regard to the election of judges, it can be done by a simple amendment to that act presented to the legislature and passed without again submitting it to the votes of the people. Whatever is put in this charter now will have to be passed by the legislature, and after it has been passed by the legislature, it will be submitted to the people and voted on. Now, why come up to the legisla- ture with these provisions — MR. MERRIAM: Will you let me suggest? The amendment to the char- ter, as I understand it, would be a con- stitutional amendment, and the terms of that are such that these laws cannot be subsequently changed without the ap- proval of the people of this city. You cannot amend an act by a simple law; that law must be approved by the people of Chicago before it can become effec- tive. MR. SHANAHAN : I am of the same opinion as Mr. McGoorty. I voted in the house for the original bill that these judges should be elected at the June election, so that they would not come in conflict with the city officers or the county officers. As Mr. Pendarvis said when the bill was presented to the sen- ate, it was the overwhelming opinion of the senate, and it was so decided that these elections should be held in the fall. I don’t know why this convention should take up that proposition again. MR. REYELL: In order to express the sentiments of this convention on this matter, which is the main thing, I be- lieve, I move a substitute that the elec- tion of municipal court judges be not held at the same time as the election of the city officers. My idea in offering this substitute in this way is, that the committee on Plan and Procedure, under this ruling, will bring back a method upon which this election shall be held. MR. DEYER: I want to ask Mr. Mc- Goorty: Will it be county officers? MR. RE YELL: City or county. MR. DEYER: City, county or state. MR. REYELL: Or state. MR. McGOORTY: I assume that the Committee on Plan will take the senti- ment of the convention on that matter. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read Mr. Revell ’s substitute for the entire matter. THE SECRETARY: Mr. Revell of- fers as a substitute that the election of municipal court judges be not held at the same time as the election of city or county officers. MR. DEVER: I was mistaken in of- fering that suggestion, and I would like to withdraw it. I see now, that the Circuit Court judges and the Superior court judges are county officers. Their election would not conflict. MR. SNOW: I would like the other to be read, and perhaps Mr. Revell will be willing to accept the other substi- tute. December 4 138 1906 MR. ROSENTHAL: I want to offer a substitute for Mr. Revell ’s motion, to express it more clearly. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal’s substitute for Mr. Revell’s substitute will be submitted. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Rosen- thal: The election of all city officers, including municipal judges, shall be held in the spring. Provision shall, how- ever, be made for the election of mu- nicipal judges at a time when there is no mayoralty election. By Mr. Snow; Provided, however, that judges of the municipal court shall be elected at a time when no offices other than judicial are to be filled. MR. SNOW: In order — THE CHAIRMAN: Let us get that straightened out. You offer that as an amendment or a substitute for Mr. Re- vell ’s substitute. I would like a sub- stitute for the substitute offered by Mr. Revell, with his consent — I believe un- der parliamentary practice I will have to have his consent. MR, REYELL: I do not like either of the substitutes for my substitute, for the reason that I prefer to leave this matter to the very thoughtful and careful consideration of the Committee on Plan and Procedure. I agree with Mr. McGoorty to a large extent, and I also agree somewhat with Mr. Snow, but both of those substitutes compel us to decide upon something today which we may not agree to later on. I want the committee on plan and procedure to consider it, and whenever they bring in whatever they wish to, we can then de- cide whether or not it is right; and un- der my substitute, it leaves the matter open in that way. MR. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, any sub- stitute on that question of time is left to the committee to bring in to the con- vention. MR. REVELL: That is the point I do not wish to permit. It may be found that there is some election — may be some other plan under which there may be an election held which may not be objectionable. We want to know that; we do not know it today. MR. SNOW : That is actually where the issue arises. I offered that because I believe in selecting the judiciary that it should be done at a time when the public mind is given up exclusively to the consideration of judicial officers for that judiciary. I do not believe it should be held either at the spring election, because of the fact that there are gen- eral issues in the aldermanic election which would more or less confuse the voter, and more or less disturb atten- tion from the main object to secure the best judicial officers. The same thing is true in the fall election, or in any elec- tion of any officers other than judicial officers. I should be very glad to get my substitute before the body, if I can do so in a parliamentary manner. MR. J. W. ECKHART: I move that all substitutes offered be laid on the table. MR. FISHER : What is the original proposition? THE CHAIRMAN: The original proposition is the adoption of an al- ternative to “A. ” MR. FISHER : Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: That the elec- tion of city officers, except those for municipal courts, shall be held in the spring. MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to that question. It seems to me that Mr. Snow’s motion correctly presents the issue that is be- fore the house. I do not understand that anybody here advocates mixing up judiciary elections with state, county and national elections, or for other of- ficers other than judicial officers. If they do, we have not heard them speak I yet; and I do not suppose that anybody really seriously entertains that theory. Certainly it is not the thory of the December 4 139 1906 people of this city. It seems to me we aie called upon to choose upon a very simple issue: Shall we elect municipal court judges as though they were city officers as a part of the municipal elec- tion, or shall we elect them as judicial officers, as part of a judicial election? For my part I can see only one advan- tage in the municipal election, and that is the advantage brought about by the adoption of the last resolution, namely, that if they are nominated as municipal officers, they will go upon the ticket in alphabetical order under the name of the judicial officers, and we will get rid of the thing Mr. Shepard has spoken of, namely, having a lot of judicial officers carried through by the head of the ticket. That illustrates the advantage of the resolution we have just adopted; which now we have passed upon. If there are nine judges to be elected, and three or four or five parties nominate nine each, they will all be on in alpha- betical order, and the voter will have to go and pick them out. Now, if we can by any possibility combine the election of these judges at the judicial election where we shall have that form of a ballot, I will be in favor of it. I don’t know that I am not in favor of it now. I don’t know very well — I think it is impossible — I do not believe we can at this time recommend changes to the legislature in the form of a ballot which would recommend changes in the mu- nicipal court judges, and also the circuit court judges election. It it outside of our province in charter legislation, and it seems to me that the question is clearly before us on Mr. Snow ’s substi- tute; that that is really the alternative that we have. MR. BEEBE: I desire to say one word in regard to one part of Mr. Fisher’s statement. It is because we have recently adopted that at this con- vention that I am opposed to electing the judicial officers at the spring elec- tion. In the ballot last fall we had, I believe, five parties, and if we were to elect or nominate nine from each party, we would have at least forty-five can- didates for judge, of whom nine would be elected. A number of men go to the poles with no idea of selecting more than one or two, and the result would be that we would probably elect a man whose name begins with “ A ” or ‘ 1 B, ” with the exception of the fact that an individual here and there would vote for a man down the line that he was par- ticularly in favor of. I think the fact that we have adopted the method of procedure, that we have settled the mat- ter, makes it imperative that we separate the municipal election from the judicial election. MR. FISHER: Mr. Beebe has con- verted me in favor of Mr. Snow’s rec- ommendation. MR. SNOW : I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, whether or not it would be possible under the parliamentary prac- tice which is in vogue here for me to ask to have my substitute substituted for the substitute before the house? THE CHAIRMAN: There is a mo- tion before the house of Mr. Eckhart’s that we should lay all the substitutes on the table. MR. SNOW: I offer mine as a sub- stitute for the whole matter. THE CHAIRMAN: That would ne- cessitate the withdrawal of Mr. Eck- hart ’s motion that your substitute lie on the table with the others. MR. SNOW: It amounts to the same thing in the end. It gives us a particu- lar vote. THE CHAIRMAN: Will the Secre- tary read Mr. Snow’s substitute? THE SECRETARY : ‘ ‘ Provided, however, that judges of the municipal court shall be elected at a time when no offices other than judicial are to be filled.” MR. ROSENTHAL: I desire to say— December 4 140 1906 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal has spoken once on the question. Aider- man Zimmer has the floor. MR. ZIMMER: It seems to me that if we took a vote on Mr. Eckhart ’s mo- tion, we should be making some pro- gress. THE CHAIRMAN: Sir? MR. ZIMMER : It seems to me that if we took a vote on the last motion to table all substitutes, we should make some progress here, and get to a close of this business. I suggest that we proceed with the roll call on that mo- tion. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal, for what purpose did you rise? MR. ROSENTHAL: I have not spoken to this question. THE CHAIRMAN : I thought you had. MR. ROSENTHAL: No, sir, I have not. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair apol- ogizes; you may speak. MR. ROSENTHAL: I simply wish to say a word in favor of the substitute. That substitute provides that the elec- tion of municipal court judges shall be at the same time that we have other municipal elections, but not at the time we have elections for mayor. It seems to me that we should do well to pass a resolution of that sort. It works prac- tically. We won’t be put to any addi- tional expense. The only other munici- pal officers to be elected at that par- ticular time, will be aldermen. Now, that is not so inconsistent with the mo- tion. A particular ward can simply vote for an alderman and vote for municipal judges. I think it would be much more unfortunate to vote for a large num- ber of municipal court judges and cir- cuit judges and superior court judges. If a constitutional change can be made at one particular time, it should be done. When this municipal court act, Mr. Chairman, was before the legislature, there was much opposition to it from many quarters, but there was one thing about which all contending factions were agreed, and that was that the election of municipal court judges should not occur at the time of any general elec- tion. And inasmuch as all the contend- ing factions that were before the legis- lature were agreed upon that proposi- tion, that was the one proposition which the legislature turned down absolutely. MR. HOYNE: It seems to me to be an afternoon of substitutes. I move to substitute Mr. Rosenthal ’s substitute — that that be substituted for Mr. Snow’s substitute. THE CHAIRMAN: In the interest of clarity, the Chair will have to rule that the next vote will be upon Mr. Eckhart’s motion that all the substitutes lay on the table. MR, ECKHART: I withdraw mj motion. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Eckhart withdraws his motion. Mr. Hoyne moves to substitute Mr. Rosenthal’s sub- stitute for Mr. Snow’s substitute. MR, SNOW : A point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: One moment. Mr. Snow ’s substitute being the last substitute, and Mr. Rosenthal ’s substi- tute having been offered first, the chair is unable to see how the first substitute can be substituted for the last substi- tute; and the ruling of the chair will be that the first vote will be taken on Alderman Snow ’s motion. MR. ROBINS: I understand Mr. Revell to say that if Mr. Eckhart would withdraw his motion to table the sub- stitute, he would accept Mr. Snow ’s substitute. That would make Mr. Snow’s substitute the first. Is that correct? THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will not review his ruling. First, the Sec- retary will call the roll on the motion to substitute Alderman Snow’s substi- tute for Mr. Revell ’s substitute. Yeas — Badenoch, Baker, Beebe, Beil- December 4 141 1906 fuss, Bennett, Brown, Burke, Church, Cole, Crilly, Dixon, G. W., Dixon, T. J., Eckhart, B. A., Fisher, Gansbergen, Guerin, Haas, J ones, Kittleman, Lath- rop, Linehan, MacMillan, McGoorty, Mc- Kinley, Merriam, O’Donnell, Paullin, Pendarvis, Post, Bainey, Baymer, Revell, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Snow, Swift, Taylor, Werno, White, Wilkins, Young —42. Nays — Dever, Eckhart, J. W., Hoyne, Owens, Bobins, Bosenthal, Yopicka, Zimmer — 8. MB. DEYER: Mr. Chairman, I want to understand this question: Shall we have an opportunity to express our opin- ion on both of these matters? In other words, I would prefer Mr. Rosenthal’s motion. If I cannot have that I will vote for this. THE CHAIRMAN: If Alderman Snow ’s motion is carried, Mr. Bosen- thal ’s substitute will no longer be be- fore the house. MB. DEYEB: If this motion is car- ried in the affirmative. THE CHAIRMAN: The proper mo- tion will be to adopt or reject Mr. Snow’s substitute, and Mr. Bosenthal ’s motion will not be before the house. MB. DEVEB. Then I vote no. MB. FISHER: May I ask what is the question: is it a vote on Mr. Snow’s resolution? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MR. FISHER: I vote aye. MR. BADENOCH: Mr. Chairman, I desire to be recorded aye. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion to substitute Alderman Snow ’s substitute for Mr. Revell ’s stands, ayes 42, nays 8, and it is carried. THE CHAIRMAN: The question now reverts upon the original proposi- tion, to which Alderman Snow ’s is an addition. The Secretary will read it. THE SECRETARY: “Alternative to A: on the left hand column of page 52. The election of all city officers Except those for the municipal court shall be held in the spring; provided, however, that judges of the municipal court shall be elected at a time when no offices other than judicial are to be filled. MR. YOUNG: I move the adoption of that. THE CHAIRMAN: It is moved and seconded that this section, as amended, be adopted. Do you desire a roll call? The Secretary will call the roll. MB. ROBINS: For a point of in- formation. I understand that the con- vention at the present time stands com- mited to elections for municipal officers not being under a party label. Now, I would like to know whether a municipal court judge is a municipal officer or not, within that provision. THE CHAIRMAN: I should judge that he was a municipal officer. MR. ROBINS: I should judge he was. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. ROBINS: Then he still will be connected with party politics in the election. There still will be the party form of ballot. In the matter of mu- nicipal judges, each one of the judges would be under the party label — would be under the office existing under a par- ty label, and there will be one ballot for the city judges, and one for the circfiit and superior court judges. It seems to me that the confusion that will exist is an unfortunate confusion. I wonder, at this moment, whether all the members of the Convention have clearly seen the advantage of the recommenda- tion in the Rosenthal resolution, and Mr. McGoorty, himself, that this elec- tion should occur properly as a munici- pal office. That confuses the political issues. It seems to me that the Con- vention is going into confusion, and if I am right, I would like to move at this time the reconsideration of the vote by which the substitute was adopted, that December 4 142 1906 we might discuss the matter further and get the matter in a really correct form. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion to reconsider. MR. ROBINS: I make the motion. MR. BEEBE: I believe it would be much better if we were to reconsider the vote by which we adopted No. 2, and we would place in front the words, “For each office, ” “ Other than Judicial, ’ ’ af- ter we get through. MR. JONES: Earlier in the session I made a motion to defer the considera- pased on paragraph 4, because I an- ticipated the very difficulty with which we are now faced. It seems to me, af- ter we have considered paragraph 4, we should go back and reconsider par- agraph 2. THE CHAIRMAN : It occurs to the Chair, if he may be permitted to make a suggestion, that Alderman Snow’s ad- dition should be to 4-A. MR. SNOW : That is what it is. MR. FISHER: It was to 4-A. THE CHAIRMAN: Then I see no reason why there should be any diffi- culty. MR. FISHER: There is not. MR. POST : There is one question, Mr. Chairman, — THE CHAIRMAN: The question be- fore the house is generally to adopt 4-A as amended by Alderman Snow. MR. POST : There is one question to which I would call attention; I don’t know that it is important. Is this com- mittee that is to prepare the final form to consider that June is in the spring? Is June in the spring for all the pur- poses of this charter? If so, there is no objection after the formal objection has been removed. If June is not in the spring, then you are providing for two elections in the spring. MR. BENNETT: In order to clear that question, I move that it is the sense of this convention that June be consid- ered a spring month. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chairman will rule that that is the sense of this convention, without the consent of any other nation. The Secretary will call the roll on the motion. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we ought to get this matter cleared up on one or two points before we vote on it. I think Mr. Rob- ins ’ point was well taken. You have decided that all municipal officers shall be nominated in a certain way, and you have ruled that these municipal judges are municipal officers. There is only one way out of it, it seems to me, and if we understand it and take that way out of it we ought to go back and re- consider that motion, and unless we do we cannot vote for this. Otherwise we have plunged ourselves into confusion. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Robins made the very point I made at the very out- set of this discussion. THE CHAIRMAN: Why not dispose of this matter and take the other up afterwards? MR. YOUNG: I was about to make that suggestion. MR. SNOW: Before the roll is called upon the motion I want to know what this is attached to and whether it should be in the first alternative to 4-A. THE CHAIRMAN: Did you specify that? MR. REVELL: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Is that amend- ment to the alternative? MR RE YELL: Yes, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: It thereby ex- cepts municipal judges twice? MR. SNOW: I do not want to take that view. MR. REYELL: I hope we will refer this matter to the committee on rules. MR. SNOW: That has got to be settled here. THE CHAIRMAN: Let Alderman Snow explain again to what he wants his proviso attached. December 4 143 1906 ME. SNOW: Let it be read onto 4-A. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon that let the secretary call the roll. ME. BAKER: Do I understand it is on 4-A or the alternative to A? THE CHAIRMAN: It is on 4-A with the Snow amendment. Let the secretary read the question as it is to be voted upon. 4-A with the amend- ment by Mr. Snow. THE CHAIRMAN : Upon that the secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Badenoch, Baker, Beebe, Beil- fuss, Bennett, Brown, Burke, Church, Cole, Crilly, Dever, Dixon, G. W., Eck- hart, B. A., Eidmann, Fisher, Gansber- gen, Guerin, Hoyne, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, MacMillan, McGoor- ty, McKinley, Merriam, O 'Donnell, Owens, Pendarvis, Post, Rainey, Ray- mer, Revell, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Snow, Swift, Taylor, Yopicka, Werno, White, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 46. Nays — Robins — 1. MR. DEYER: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Just one min- ute. What is it, Mr. Dever? MR. DEYiCR: I would like to vote in favor of the Rosenthal motion. I vote aye on this. MR. PENDARVIS: Mr. Chairman, on the assumption that the month of June is a young month and the elec- tions of the judges be taken into con- sideration in fixing the time, I vote aye. MR. POST: I follow the same prin- ciple as Mr. Pendarvis. MR. REVELL: Explaining that this Convention has wonderful power to change the seasons of the year, I also vote aye. MR. CHAIRMAN: Upon the motion to adopt there are 46 ayes and one no, and it is adopted. MR. SHEPARD: The question of evening sessions has been considered and discussed by some of the members of this Convention. Some of those who are very busy and engaged in their business are not here; and I move you, sir, that the committee on rules and procedure take that matter up and con- sider it and report the advisability of evening sessions at reasonable hours, at the next meeting of this Conven- tion. THE CHAIRMAN: Have you your motion in writing? MR. SHEPARD: No, I have not. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion. A MEMBER: No. MR. SHEPARD: I move that the committee on rules and procedure re- port the advisability of holding even- ing sessions of this convention com- mencing next week. THE CHAIRMAN: If there are no objections the matter will be referred to the committee on rules and pro- cedure. MR. FISHER: The committee on rules and procedure will not have much more knowledge on this subject that any individual member. Would not it be well to take a rising vote and get some expression of opinion as to that? MR. SHEPARD: I move you, com- mencing with next Monday we hold evening sessions. THE CHAIRMAN: You had better make it Tuesday. MR. SHEPARD: Yes, that is right. We meet Tuesday evening at seven o 'clock and hold a session Tuesday evening and Wednesday evening next week, say from seven until nine-thirty o 'clock. THE CHAIRMAN: Make it ten o 'clock. MR. REVELL: May I ask the gen- tleman a question? THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly. MR. REVELL: I suggest that this motion be withdrawn until the motion December 4 144 1906 to adjourn is made this evening, or this afternoon. MR. SHEPARD: Very well. THE CHAIRMAN: There is just one more suggestion relative to this matter before the motion to adjourn is con- sidered. MR. REVELL: Well, it has to come up some time and I think it ought to come up now. MR. WERNO: We ought to go back to section 2 and amend that first sug- gestion by Mr. Beebe, and I make a motion to reconsider the vote on it. THE CHAIRMAN: It is moved and seconded that the vote by which sec- tion 2 was adopted — read section 2. The secretary read section 2 as it appears in the proceedings at page 52. MR. FISHER: I do not know whether there is a second to that mo- tion or not, but I think it would be the same, as you say the municipal judges are excluded from No. 2. MR. WERNO: That is the purpose. MR. FISHER: Then we could get at it in a motion. I move that the municipal judges be excluded from section 2. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion that the mu- nicipal judges be excepted from the operation of section 2. All those in favor signify by aying aye. MR. ZIMMER: I desire to be re- corded on the motion. THE CHAIRMAN: I beg pardon? I did not know anybody wished to speak. MR. ZIMMER: I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I argued this after- noon in favor of No. 2 so that we Qould try to eliminate politics largely, or party politics from the election of various offices; and there is one office that party politics should be excluded from and this is one of them: the election of judges. And in excluding judges from the provisions of No. 2 you are simply taking a step backward, in my estimation. That is the par- ticular office that should come under section 2, providing that there shall be no party designation, no party or- ganization designated as to the judges. MR. MERRIAM: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Professor Mer- riam has the floor. MR. MERRIAM: I call attention to the fact that the judges are elected every six years. That is, the Circuit Judges are elected every six years. So that will make it that there will be two times when there will be only municipal judges elected and once when there will be both municipal and circuit judges elected, and at that time you have the circuit judges and mu- nicipal judges elected on the same ballot. I do not want to take up the time of the Convention, but I wish to call attention to that fact. MR. DEYER: I would like to ask the clerk to read 4-A as amended by Alderman Snow’s resolution. THE CHAIRMAN: Will you read that, please? The secretary read as hereinbefore stated. MR. DEYER: I would like to put an amendment to that as it now stands. THE CHAIRMAN: I do not know how an amendment can be offered to it now since the motion is made to reconsider it. MR. DEVER: We have just taken a vote for the purpose of bringing up section 2. THE CHAIRMAN: That is a vote to reconsider; and the vote on section 2 was reconsidered. MR. DEVER: No, I did not so un- derstand it. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, that is right. MR. DEYER: I anticipate that the ruling of the Chair in this instance will be the same as in the other. December 4 145 1906 THE CHAIRMAN: Let us dispose of the matter before the house then. MR. DEVER: I understand that was disposed of and carried by a viva voce vote. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair in- advertently put the vote. Do you want a roll call? VOICES: Yes, yes. THE CHAIRMAN: The clerk will please call the roll. MR. G. W. DIXON: Please state the question. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon section 4 as amended by Aider- man Snow. MR. BENNETT: The question as I understand it is upon the motion of Mr. Fisher to amend Section 2 by ex- cluding the municipal court judges. THE CHAIRMAN: That is the ques- tion before the house now. MR. ROSENTHAL: I rise to a point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: What is it? MR. ROSENTHAL: This section 2 has been carried. Now if it has been carried, we can't proceed on it, and if we take this up in this way we might as well go back and take up every single section. THE CHAIRMAN: It has been found that a subsequent matter inter- feres with it in the judgment of the members of the Convention; it inter- feres with section 2, and we want to clear up section 2, and it was deemed necessary to reconsider it and amend it. The Chair understands that the next thing is upon Mr. Fisher's amend- ment to section 2. MR. FISHER: I think as the chair- man stated, the reason for considering that was confusion. I do not know whether there is any confusion or not. I think there may very well be; I think we are getting into a state of confusion that is hard to untangle. And there is a question there as to the aldermen being elected for four years, two years alternately. It seems to me that we might very well let this matter rest as it is until we find out and then, if necessary, amend section 2. Let the draft of the charter be drawn, and if we then reach the con- clusion that it is necessary under the conditions to amend, we can then do it. I think perhaps *in the interests of clearness that this motion should be withdrawn and we let this matter stand until the committee on rules drafts the charter. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, what will we do with the matter? MR. COLE: It seems to me every- thing is at sea; and so I move that all substitutes to resolutions in regard to section 2 or 4 be laid on the table. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the question. All those in favor signify by saying aye. The motion prevailed. THE CHAIRMAN: The secretary will read No. 5. The secretary read No. 5 as it ap- pears in the proceedings at page 52. MR. DEVER: I move its adoption. MR. BENNETT: I am not opposed to the idea of having committee ex- penses shown up as far as possible; but will any gentlemen here imagine in the midst of a campaign in which his friends are spending money making an affidavit of the amount of money they have spent. He can make an affidavit as to himself, but I do not see how he is going to make an affi- davit as to them. MR. POST: What became of the substitute and the amendment that were to be reconsidered? THE CHAIRMAN: On motion of Mr. Cole they were laid on the table, the motion was put and carried. MR. MERRIAM: I desire to speak on No. 5. The purpose of requiring the candidates and political commit- tee to make sworn statements in regard to their receipts and expenditures is December 4 146 1906 in line with the uniform practice throughout the United States; and in line, so far as the federal elections are now being considered by Congress by a bill that is likely to be passed at this session. There are now fourteen states in the union which have laws similar to this on their statute books. There are laws applying to the entire state or laws applying to particular cities. Chicago is in fact the only large city today that does not have applicable to its municipal and other elections a statute similar to this. They have them in Boston, St. Louis, New York, and in all the Pennsylvania cities of any importance; San Francisco, Den- ver, and so on down the list. And it is true, as Alderman Bennett has said, that the candidate can only state what he himself has spent; nevertheless you can require any one to state how much money he has received and spent, and you can require him by law and pun- ish him for failure to comply with the requirements to submit by the political committee or the treasurer or the agent or whatever name you are mind- ed to call him acting for the candidate just what has been running through his hands. This has been found to be satisfac- tory in the cities where it has been tried in the United States. We have a statement from the socialist candi- date in New York, along with the state- ments of the other various candidates, where he said he had spent one 2-cent stamp in acknowledging the receipt of the notification of his nomination. Of course those outside of the city do not care so much about the adop- tion of this kind of law. But it is not forced upon them, and we do not de- sire to force it upon them; but I think there is a strong popular sentiment in this city of having a sworn state- ment made by candidates or political committees as to their expenditures. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon the adoption of section 5. Let there be a roll call. Yeas — Beebe, Bennett, Brown, Burke, Church, Cole, Dever, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Fisher, Gansbergen, Guerin, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, MacMillan, McGoorty, Mc- Kinley, Merriam, O 'Donnell, Paulin, Pendarvis, Post, Rainey, Raymer, Revell, Robins, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Snow, Taylor, Yopicka, Werno, Young, Zimmer — 38. Nays — Badenoch. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the pub- licity proposition the ayes have 38, they nays have 1, and the motion to adopt is carried. MR. B. A. ECKHART: I move that we hold evening sessions on the days that we hold day sessions, except Mon- day evenings, when the council cham- ber will be otherwise engaged. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion, that hereafter the sessions of this convention be held in the evening. MR. B. A. ECKHART: That we having an evening session on the day that we hold a day session. In sup- port of that motion I desire to say this. That, judging from the progress we have made, it will take probably four weeks to conclude our deliberations. A great many of the members of this convention cannot devote all their time to this work. It interferes with their business and with their affairs. I think we can begin at 7 o'clock and hold till 9:30, and in that way make a great deal of progress, and men who are interested can be here. MR. POST: I move to amend that motion, that all the sessions be even- ing sessions. I do not think we can keep in continuous session, and by a continuous session we would not make any rapid progress. And I wish to make a protest as to holding day and I evening sessions. This Convention was December 4 147 1906 organized a year ago. Throughout the entire winter nothing was done; in the spring nothing was done; in the sum- mer nothing was done; in the fall noth- ing was done. We had committees, but the committees dawdled along. If the committees had gone to work and done their work this convention could have met and disposed of all these matters. But instead of doing that the gentlemen who are responsible for this delay of month after month and season after season until you reach the time when you have to rush through, now want to hold practically continu- ous sessions. I do not think this Con- vention ought to be turned into a con- vention of gentlemen of leisure, who can spend all their time doing nothing but attending upon its sessions. Some of us have other work to do. Some of us, who are just as much inter- ested as others, have other things we have to do, and want to do this as Veil as they do, but we cannot give all of our time. And I protest against holding these sessions day and night to make up for the neglect of the gen- tlemen who are pushing the work now when all the preceding twelve months were spent in doing nothing. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is that we should hold night sessions here- after so that some men who have been prevented from coming here to the afternoon sessions may do so, and we could go on every night except Mon- day night and the alternative Wednes- day night. MR. ROBINS: I have talked to two or three representatives or delegates that have not attended a single session of this convention up to the present time. They are all men who work for a living, and when I say work, I mean work personally. They cannot be here. I want to say that one of these is president of the Federation of Labor, and he would attend these sessions if they were held in the evening, but he cannot attend them in the daytime and attend to his duties, which he con- siders are necessary to be done. Now, this charter has to be passed by a vote of the people of this city, and it seems to me we act unwisely, even though we are not desiring to do anything contrary to their desire, but we do unwisely if we do not at least consider this matter of those delegates who cannot attend, because they are people working daily for their bread, and I think that it will be well for us at this time to consider this matter. MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask whether we would not make as rapid progress by adopt- ing Mr. Post ’s motion, provided the hours are long enough, — that is to say, if we hold sessions every day in the week except Monday, Sunday and the alternative Wednesday, which is the Board of Education meeting, right along. In that way we would have five meetings one week and four meetings in the alternate week. And we could go right along. And why should we not convene at 8 o’clock and hold until half -past 10 at least? THE CHAIRMAN: Why not make it seven thirty. MR. FISHER: Seven thirty, and hold until half-past ten, which would give us three hours. We can hold later than that if we wish, and we can begin earlier and hold longer ses- sions. Perhaps we can make more rapid progress than trying to combine afternoon and evening sessions. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Beebe. MR. BEEBE: I think we would find some of the same difficulties arising if we tried to hold every night that we will have if we hold every afternoon. It seems to me that if we fix certain days in the week that we can make arrangements to get here at those par- ticular times. I know that there are some who are obliged to be out of 1 the city at times, and if we try to December 4 148 1906 meet every night they have to miss the meetings. MR. YOUNG: I was trying to make a similar suggestion as was made by Mr. Beebe, that there are men who cannot be here every afternoon, and there are others who cannot be here every evening. It is practically im- possible for all of the members of the Convention to be present all of the time. For my part it is very in- convenient for me to come here day after day and then come back in the evening. I suggest we take three evenings and three afternoons, and I would suggest that we take the even- ing of the afternon so that the matter would be fresh in our minds, and then those that could not attend in the afternoon could attend in the evening. If we take three afternoons in the week and three evenings in the week that would give us six meetings in the week. THE CHAIRMAN' : Mr. Snow. MR. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, I had it in mind to make a motion very similar to that, only that we would make it two afternoons in the week and three evenings, but not of the same day. There are many of us who find it difficult to get here afternoons day after day, and it would be equally as difficult to get here every night. It seems that if we could compromise by setting two afternoons in the week and three evenings it would be better, and in that we would get five sessions a week. MR. SHEDD: Along that same line I would suggest that we have four sessions a week, two in the afternoon and two in the evening, and then it will be all right. I do not like late sessions. If you hold the sessions until 9 o ’clock that would be late enough at night, because where you live an hour from the city it makes it late enough when you get home, and con- sequently I hope that we will limit the meetings until half-past nine in the evening; from seven to half -past nine. THE CHAIRMAN: That will be a question that the Convention can settle when it is in session. MR. RE YELL: I do not think the convention wants to set any date like that at this time. But I think we ought to bring it down to a concrete proposition, and I move that we ad- journ until Thursday afternoon and then hold meetings Thursday night, Friday night and Saturday night. THE CHAIRMAN: Not Saturday night? MR. REVELL: Well, I will elimi- nate Saturday. Make it Thursday night and Friday night. MR. SHANAHAN: I would like to again call the attention of the con- vention to the very short time between now and the opening of the legislature. According to what has been said in regard to having two or three sessions in the evening and two or three ses- sions in the afternoon of each week, if you have them you would not have over fifteen sessions between now and the opening of the legislature. You cannot figure meeting during the holi- day week; it would be almost impos- sible to get a quorum present. Fifteen sessions of this convention of three hours at the longest will make forty-five hours; and I do not think there is any man here now who thinks that this charter can be completed in forty-five hours. Now, it may be a hardship on some members to come here both afternoon and evening, as Gen. Young stated. It is almost an impossibility to get all the members here at every session. But we can have a big percentage of the members here at every session, and those who could not be here at the ! afternoon session will be here at the ) evening session. I take it that every man who is a I member of this convention needs December 4 149 1906 ■every hour in the day in his business, and in accepting this position as a delegate to this convention you all understood that you would have to give up some of your valuable time in order to be at the Convention, and I hope that whatever is done now, that you will give up as many hours to as many sessions as possible between now and the 9th of January. ME. RAYMER: Can we get this council chamber every day this week? THE CHAIRMAN: Every afternoon except a week from Wednesday. MR. RAYMER: Can we get it to- morrow? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. RAYMER: I think, after what has been said, it would be well for the members of this Convention to study over this matter themselves between now and the next meeting of the Con- vention and not come here with the idea that things are all going to a committee, because that would be im- possible. There is no set rule we can fix to go by in running the Convention, but it must be through giving up your time to the Convention; and I therefore move you, Mr. Chairman, as a substi- tute, that we adjourn to meet tomor- row afternoon at two o’clock. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion, the substitute? MR. FISHER: I substitute Thurs- day for that. We could have the pro- ceedings of this meeting printed and sent to the members who are not pres- ent, and they will come here on Thurs- day with some definite idea and some plan of what had been done and what was to be done. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is un- der the impression, if he may be per- mitted to take part in this debate, as Mr. Shanahan is, that we have been here for two or three hours and it scarcely suffices to cover one subject. Today has demonstrated it, and unless there are continuous ses- sions or sessions every day we will be very far from completing the charter on the 9th of January. This Conven- tion ought to be prepared to inconven- ience itself in every way and any way much more than to inconvenience the City of Chicago when the General As- sembly meets, and I would suggest that this meeting adjourn and deter- mine on some arrangement for using the council chamber. MR. FISHER: Would it not be the best plan that we go over until Thurs- day afternoon and then determine as to the regular meeting thereafter. The suggestion has been made that we meet on Monday, Wednesday and Friday afternoons. That makes alter- nate afternoons, and if it is agreeable we could meet on Wednesday and Fri- day evenings also, and that would make five sessions a week which would be in accord with the motion of Mr. Eckhart. We have a great many things to go over, and if the proceedings are print- ed and sent to the members they can know about this by Thursday after- noon. MR. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, in or- der to bring the matter before the Con- vention, in definite form, I desire to offer this resolution. Is there a reso- lution before the Convention, Mr. Chair- man? Well, then I would like to offer this as a substitute. THE CHAIRMAN: There are two of them, but that is rather below the usual number. The secretary will read Mr. Snow’s resolution. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Snow: Resolved: That this Convention shall . hold sessions hereafter as follows: From 2 p. m. to 5:30 p. m. Monday, Wednesday and Saturday, and from 7:30 p. m. to 10 p.m. on Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. MR. SNOW: My intention there, Mr. Chairman, is to provide three day and three night sessions, and I have December 4 150 1906 made it Saturday instead of Friday, in order to accommodate the finance committee. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a unani- mous consent to that? MR. REYELL: I would like to ask Mr. Snow a question. Under your resolution it provides that we shall meet tomorrow and Saturday of this week. Do you mean that we shall meet this week, or do you mean that we will commence this on next Mon- day? MR. SNOW: Yes, next week. There is a motion already adopted, as I under- stand it, to adjourn this meeting until Thursday at 2 o’clock. MR. REYELL: Has that been passed? MR. SNOW: Yes, I think it was,— Thursday at 2 o’clock. MR. RE YELL: The Chairman in- forms me that THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is under the impression that Mr. Eckhart made a motion to adjourn until Thurs- day at 2 o’clock. MR. SNOW: That was my under- standing when I offered that. MR. POST: I wish to ask if that motion ought not to lie over until Thursday when there will be a fuller meeting of the Convention and a larger scope of view than we have now. I merely ask whether that is the purpose for which it is offered. MR. RAYMER: I would like to ask when the motion to adjourn until Thurs- day prevailed. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is under the impression that it was of- fered by Mr. Eckhart and carried. MR. TAYLOR: We have had all this discussion to-day, and we have wasted a lot of time here on it. If we lay it over until Thursday, we will do the same thing that day, and we are wasting time. I will second the motion and ask for the question. The motion prevailed unanimously. MR. WERNO: Does that mean that we will not meet this week on Friday? THE CHAIRMAN: We will meet on Thursday. It is so ordered. The meet- ing stands adjourned until Thursday at 2 o’clock. And the Convention stood adjourned to meet Thursday, December 6th, 1906, at 2 o’clock p. m. December 4 151 1906 MEMORANDA. This memoranda indicates the various matters adopted by the Convention. (See page 50 and succeeding pages of the proceedings). II. CONSOLIDATION. 1. The corporate authorities existing at present for the government of the park systems of Chicago shall be abol- ished, and the management of the parks shall become a department of the city government. 2. The administration of the public school system of the City of Chicago and of the Public Library shall con- stitute departments of the city govern- ment. III. THE MAYOR. 1. The charter shall continue sub- stantially the provisions of the pres- ent laws regarding the qualifications and executive functions of the mayor. 2. The charter shall continue the provisions of the present laws regard- ing the relation of the mayor to the city council. Resolved, that it is the sense of this Convention that a clause be inserted in the charter designating a' city official who shall act as mayor during the ab- sence or inability of the mayor. First Alternative to 2: b. The mayor shall have a right to a seat in the city council, but shall have no vote. He shall have the right to speak and present messages and intro- duce measures subject to the general rules of procedure of the city council. Second Alternative to 2: The charter shall continue the pres- ent provisions of the law regarding the relation of the mayor to the city coun- cil, except that he shall not preside at the meetings of the city council, but the city council shall elect its own presiding officer from its members. 3. The veto power of the mayor shall be as now prescribed by law. The following resolution on the sub- ject of The Mayor is still pending: 4. The term of office of the mayor shall be four years. Alternative to 4: The terms of office of the mayor shall be the same as that of the members of the city council. IY. ELECTIONS. First alternative to 1: Elective city officers shall be nominated under a sys- tem of direct primaries, with appropriate provision for independent nominations by petition. 2. The names of all the nominees for each office shall be printed on the bal- lot under the title of the office for which they are candidates. The following resolution on the sub- ject of suifrage for women is still pend- ing: 3. The charter shall contain no pro- vision for conferring the right of suf- frage on women. 4. a. The election of all city offi- cers, including those for the municipal court, shall be held in the spring. Pro- vided, however, that judges of the mu- nicipal court shall be elected at a time when no offices other than judicial are to be filled. 5. Candidates and political commit- tees shall be required to make sworn statements of receipts and expenditures of any campaign for nomination or election. December 4 152 1906 Resolutions offered from the floor of the Convention, but not acted upon. BY MR. RE YELL: Alternative to YI. The City Council. VI. THE CITY COUNCIL. 1. The charter shall provide for re- districting the city into sixty wards. 2. Each ward shall nominate candi- dates for aldermen, who shall be voted on by the entire city. 3. The terms of aldermen shall be four years. 4. One fourth of the aldermen to re- tire each year. 5. No alderman shall be elected to succeed himself. 6. The compensation of aldermen shall be at the rate of $5,000 per annum, and he shall have a secretary. 7. Aldermen shall give their entire time to serving the city as alderfiien during the term for which they are elected. 8. Aldermen shall have offices in their respective wards at which they shall be found during hours to be determined by ordinance, or otherwise. BY MR. ROSENTHAL: As an amendment to Chapter IY. en- titled ELECTIONS. By adding the fol- lowing proposition numbered 6: 6. The only elective city officers (not including aldermen and municipal judges) shall be the Mayor and City Treasurer. The City Treasurer shall be ex-officio city collector. BY MR. BENNETT: XXII. 5. SECTION Nothing in this act shall be construed to modify, impair or affect or to confer upon the city council power to pass any ordinance modifying, impairing or conflicting with the pro- visions of Section 18 of an act entitled “An act to provide for the annexation of cities, incorporated towns and vil- lages or parts of same to cities, incor- porated towns and villages ’ ’ approved April 25th, 1889, or to any provision of any law of Illinois relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors or creating or de- fining criminal offenses or relating to the prosecution and punishment thereof, nor shall any amendment or addition be made to the charter of the City of Chi- cago, except by the General Assembly, by which this section, or any part thereof shall, directly or indirectly, be abro- gated, repealed, or annulled. SPECIAL ORDERS For Week Beginning Monday, December 10 SECTION X. — Revenue, at page 53. SECTION XVII. — Education, at page 56. PARAGRAPH 3— Suffrage, at page 52. PR OCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1906 (Eljirago (Eljartrr (Emturntimt Convened, December 12, 1909 Headquarter* 1 T 1 WASHINGTON STREET TELEPHONE MAIN 487T Milton J. Foreman Chairman Alexander H. Revell, . . Vice-Chairman M. L. McKinley Secretary y.zrn. y Barrett Chamnealin, A**t. Sect ' •' • ii.- ».'•••' ■' • ’ ■ -K •■■■' PwHIB December 6 155 1906 PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Regular Meeting, Thursday, December 6, 1906 2 O’clock P. M., in the City Council Chamber OFFICIAL RECORD & j Published by authority of the Chicago Charter Convention. & THE CHAIRMAN: Will the Conven- tion be in order, please? The Secretary will call the roll? Present — Foreman, Chairman, and Baker, Beebe, Beilfuss, Bennett, Brown, Burke, Church, Cole, Crilly, Dever, Dix- on, G. W., Eekhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Erickson, Fisher, Gansbergen, Guerin, Haas, Hill, Hoyne, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, MacMillan, Mc- Goorty, McKinley, Merriam, O’Donnell, Owens, Pendarvis, Poht, Powers, Rai- ney, Raymer, Revell, Robins, Rosen- thal, Sethness, Shanahan, Shedd, Shep- ard, Snow, Sunny, Taylor, Thompson, Vopicka, Werno, White, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 53. Absent — Badenoch, Brosseau, Carey, Olettenberg, Cruice, Dixon, T. J., Eid- mann, Fitzpatrick, Graham, Harrison, Hunter, Lundberg, McCormick, Oehne, Paullin, Patterson, Rinaker, Smulski, Swift, Walker, Wilson — 21. THE CHAIRMAN: Quorum present. Are there any corrections or amend- ments to the minutes? MR. POST: I should like to make an amendment to the minutes of De- cember 3d. I did not have time to read the minutes before. On page 96 I find I am reported as wanting to know what the real name of Ostrogorsky is. Some- body did ask that question, Mr. Chair- man, but I do not want to go down to posterity charged with ignorance on that subject. My recollection is that the question came from the aldermanic side of the house, and if the stenog- rapher will change “Mr. Post” to “The Voice of an Alderman,” or something of that kind, it would be more true. THE SECRETARY: What is the number? MR. POST: Page 96, December 3, near the bottom, the first column. THE CHAIRMAN: We will make the correction. THE SECRETARY: I have it all right. THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other corrections or amendments? If December 6 156 1906 not, the record will be the official rec- ord of the meeting of last Tuesday. The Secretary will now read Section 5, civil service. The Secretary read Section 5 as it appears in the proceedings at page 52. THE CHAIRMAN: The question be- fore the Convention is No. 1. The al- ternative to No. 1, b, the civil service law, shall not apply to the municipal court. The matter is before the Con- vention for its action. The Chair would suggest than an affirmative vote on this proposition would produce a good re- sult. MR. ROSENTHAL: I understand that the alternative to No. 1 is before us, isn’t it? THE CHAIRMAN: I didn’t under- stand it. MR. ROSENTHAL: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the alternative to No. la is before the house. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. ROSENTHAL: I understood you to say “b. ” THE CHAIRMAN: Did I say “b”? I did not intend to say so. No. 1, the two alternatives, may be taken up for discussion at the same time. They are pretty much connected with one an- other. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of No. 1, propo- sition No. 1. THE CHAIRMAN: Proposition No. 1. I think the proper method in which it should come before this convention is a discussion of alternatives to No. 1, a and b. MR. SNOW: The motion is to adopt the first proposition, which would kill the alternative. THE CHAIRMAN: That would dis- pose of the alternatives. MR. PENDARVIS: It seems to me that both of the alternatives proceed upon the assumption that we have adopted the proposition for civil serv- THE CHAIRMAN: Sir? MR. PENDARVIS: It seems to me that the two alternatives, one a and b, proceed on the assumption that we have already adopted the principle of civil service, and that they are really more in the nature of amendments to the main proposition than they are alterna- tives. You cannot very well act on b r or the alternative to la, without first having discussed and passed upon the main proposition. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion, as I understand it to be, is that No. 1 shall be adopted. If that is adopted, it will appear to the Chair that it will dispose of the two alternatives, be- cause the two alternatives constitute exceptions to No. 1. MR. SNOW: The second alternative to b, if adopted, simply is an alterna- tive, and it will not complete the pur- pose of the original proposition. I move you, therefore, that the alterna- tive printed as b be added to, as an amendment, to proposition 1, so that it should be continuous. The first propo- sition and alternative b as amended thereby. MR. BURKE: I wish to move that the motion lay on the table. Before that I desire to say a few words. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the gentlemen of the Convention should decide that the civil service laws apply to our municipal courts, the same as any other branch of our municipal government. I see no really good reason, and I do not know of any real good argument for excepting officers of the municipal courts. I do not wish to criticise, nor even to seriously call the attention of anyone to the recent appointments in our municipal courts. It is possible that the gentlemen at the head of those two branches of the municipal court did the best in their judgment as to what they thought was right, but I feel that these courts, especially if they are new ones, and in view of the fact that ice. December 6 157 1906 we are trying to get as close to the people as possible — I feel that there is no better way of purifying the courts and keeping them up to that standard of efficiency which people expect from every officer. And when I say every officer, I mean every officer under the head of the chief clerk and the chief bailiff. For that reason I wish to lay the amendment on the table. ME. SNOW: I presume the gentle- man does not desire to cut off the de- bate? ME. BUEKE : Not at all. ME. SNOW: I presume he does not wish to cut off debate, although the matter is laid on the table. THE CHAIEMAN: We won’t have any debate cut off. ME. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, I have offered that amendment for this rea- son: The municipal court law is a new law which has just gone into effect, and the wording of which we are not yet in a position to thoroughly under- stand. It strikes me that it would be unwise at this time to begin legislation which would tinker with the new munic- ipal court act. There are to me very good reasons why the civil service law, which should apply to the ordinary functions of government, might not spe- cially and properly be applied to the judicial positions. Take the case of the chief bailiff, for example, and his deputy bailiffs. The chief bailiff is re- sponsible, as the sheriff would be, un- der his bond, for the action of those deputies; and it is not a reasonable proposition to force upon him, by means of the civil service law, or any other means, a man for whom he is not pre- pared to accept responsibility. People look to him for the proper conduct of that office; they hold him responsible, not only during the term of the office, but for a considerable time financially after their terms have expired. For that reason, it seems to me, he should be given a free hand in the selection of men in whom he has confidence, — in their judgment and in their honesty. Further than that, the law, as it is drawn, practically makes the judges of the municipal court a civil service com- mission. The power of reviewing the appointments and the power to refuse to confirm any direct appointments rests upon them, as I understand it, so that the service is entirely safe in leaving the question of appointments, therefore, to the discretion of the judges who have been selected, and who are more vitally interested in the honest, cor- rect and efficient management of the office than is any other citizen in Chi- cago. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I offer that amendment; and for those reasons I trust it will be accepted. ME. WEENO: I am very much sur- prised, Mr. Chairman, at the argument made by the gentleman who has just preceded me. That same argument would apply to every department of the city government. The head of every department is responsible for the work of the department, and if it is true that he should be given a free hand because of the responsibility that is placed up- on him, or if it is true that the chief bailiff should be given a free hand be- cause of the responsibilities that are placed upon him, then, I say, the head of every department of the city gov- ernment should be given a free hand. If you are in favor of civil service, it seems to me you should favor it in every department of the city govern- ment, and especially should that be true of the system of courts. We know that when this act creating these mu- nicipal courts was first presented to the general assembly it contained a pro- vision for civil service, but during its discussion in the committee that pro- vision was cut out. It was then, un- derstand, commonly conceded to let that go until a little later on, and prob- ably that wrong would be amended. Some insist that it should be amended. December 6 158 1906 There seems to me to be an impression among some men, or at least a belief, that that law will be amended at the next session of the legislature, provid- ing for civil service. If that is true, why should we put something into this charter saying that the civil service law should not apply to the municipal courts? Is it done for the purpose of forestalling action in the legislature, or what is the purpose of it? I believe that if there is any department in our system of government where civil serv- ice laws should prevail, it is in the de- partment of justice, in the courts. It seems to me that this convention is making a great mistake to ad an amend- ment of that kind to this charter. MR. COLE: I want to call the Con- vention’s attention to one thing, that perhaps might modify its decision a lit- tle bit, and that is the fact that this matter of civil service is now being worked out as to state, county and city, under a commission appointed by Presi- dent Brudnage of the County Board. Representatives of the State Civil Service Commission, the County Civil Service Commission and the City Civil Service Commission, together with some members of the County Comis- sioners, and some of the representative organizations, are sitting as a commis- sion to work this matter out. I think that they will have something to say in the next legislature. My atention is called by my next-door neighbor that there is going to be trouble in put- ting the sheriff under civil service, but it seems to me that we should adopt this first clause, and leave it to be worked out in the wash; that is all we shall accomplish, and all we will ac- compish at the present time. There- fore I am in favor of the adoption of the first clause without any addition. MR. CRILLY: The alternative to a-1 refers to the department of public works. I want to call the attention of the committee to the fact that the Committee on Parks has some kind of amendment which is not published in the proceedings, as follows: “The Park Board is hereby authorized to es- tablish civil service in the park sys- tem by choosing from its commissioners three to act as a civil service commis- sion. THE CHAIRMAN: That is the next section, Mr. Crilly, — that is the next section to be taken up. MR. ROSENTHAL: It strikes me, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that we shouldn’t avoid this matter at the pres- ent time at all. The fact that such a commission is appointed will not inter- fere, and it should not interfere with our doing our duty here in this conven- tion. If the merit system is applicable anywhere, it certainly is applicable in the municipal courts, and to persons who are engaged in the sheriff’s office. The great trouble that has arisen in the sheriff’s office has been due not to experienced men in that office, but it had been due to the failures and neglect and inexperience of raw men that have come into that office. It was stated the other day, when this matter was before this convention, that there were two propositions on which all the par- ties who came before the legislature at the time the municipal court act was there, were agreed; and one of those propositions was that the judges should not be elected at the time of any general election. The other propo- sition was that appointments to the clerk’s office, and the sheriff’s office, — the bailiff’s office, — should be made un- der the merit system. We have had scandals here in regard to the clerk’s office which we know would not have been likely to have occurred, if this office had been placed under the merit system. Now we have an opportunity of putting the office of the clerk of the municipal court and of putting the bailiff’s office under the merit system, and of getting men in there who are ex- December 6 159 perienced and who know what they are about. It seems to me that we should not hesitate to lay this amendment on the table. ME. SHANAHAN: I rise for the purpose of requesting some information. “B, of Section 5, the Civil Service Laws, shall not apply to the municipal courts, ” and “one of five , ” all de- partments of the city government, shall be under a proper civil service law. ” The information I desire is: Is the municipal court a branch of the city government? I would like to ask some- body on the law committee to pass up- on that. THE CHAIEMAN: The Chair is un- der the impression that it is municipal activity, but he is not prepared to give a legal opinion as to whether it would be construed as a department of the city government. MR. ROSENTHAL: If I may be al- lowed to speak in answer to this ques- tion, I should say it is not a city de- partment, by any means. It is a mat- ter of municipal concern — that is, a municipal court can be created in a municipality, but it is not a depart- ment of the city government. MR. BENNETT: Here is a question for the Convention, as to the construc- tion of the law. Does this convention mean by “Section 1” to include munic- ipal courts? If it does, then we should deal with the subject having that in mind. THE CHAIRMAN: It occurs to the Chair that all this might be saved if a vote were taken directly upon alterna- tive b, which would obviate the neces- sity of raising the question. MR. SHANAHAN: I want to speak to that. T want to say, at the outset, that I am in favor of the civil service law, as far as it can be extended. T introduced the original civil service bill in the legislature and did everything I could to bring it along. There is a great question as to how far you can 1906 extend the civil service law in regard to the municipal courts. Why I asked the question as to whether the munic- ipal courts were a part of the city gov- ernment, — if they are a part of the city government, then the clerk of the munic- ipal courts, his office, is now under civil service. It is a grave question whether you can at any time put the sheriff’s office or the bailiff’s office un- der civil service. I am informed that under the federal civil service law the question has arisen at different times in regard to the United States mar- shal’s office. His office has always been exempt, and is now practically the only office that is exempt under the federal law, for the reason that the deputies in the United States marshal ’s office are deputies to the marshal, and their bonds run to the marshal, and the mar- shal is responsible for their actions and can be sued upon his bond. I take it that the same thing applies to the sheriff of Cook county, who gives a very large bond to the county. His deputies are appointed by him, and are responsi- ble to him, and he can be sued upon his bond for their failure to perform certain duties. The same thing would apply to Chief Bailff Hunter. He is put under a large bond, and I am in- formed that each and every one of his deputies just appointed have been put under $100,000 bonds, and they are re- sponsible to him, and he may be sued on his bond for failure by them to per- form certain acts. I think it is a mis- take to go too fast in this matter. While we may be in favor of civil serv- ice, and want to protect every depart- ment that is possible, I think that when it comes to such a close question as that we can well pass it over for the time being. I am in favor of extending the civil service to every office it can be extended to, and I believe that we ought to pass No. 1, that all depart- ments of the city government shall bn I under a proper civil service law. December 6 160 1906 MR. JONES: I have construed No. 1 to mean that all of the city activities shall be subject to civil service law; that it shall not be restricted merely to the department. Upon that theory, I am in favor of No. 1. I believe that the civil service should be applied throughout the city administration; and I believe that the civil service laws should be extended in the federal, and the state, and the county government just as fast as they can be properly. The point that has been made in re- gard to the park I believe to be ob- jectionable. I understood Mr. Crilly’s suggestion to be that the park board will constitute a branch of the civil service commission. Now, I can see no reason why we should duplicate civil service commissions in the city of Chi- cago. If the parks are to come under the city government in the consolida- tion — THE CHAIRMAN: Will you permit me? It is thought by the Chair that we should dispose first of the question of the municipal courts, and as a second proposition take up the proposition of civil service for the parks, which is a separate alternative, and printed in the proceedings as a counter suggestion by the Park Board. MR. JONES: I understand that the three questions are being debated to- gether. That is how I was considering it. I wish to say in regard to the parks’ civil service commission that I can see no reason why there should be a separate commission for the parks. If they are now in a sense under a civil service commission, they should be placed under one civil service commis- sion. With respect to the municipal courts, I do not understand that the ar- gument which has been made with re- gard to the bailiff’s office can apply to the clerk’s office, and I see, therefore, no reason why the employes of the clerk of the municipal court could not be at once placed under the civil service law. With regard to the bailiffs, or the dep- uty bailiff, I would suggest that b be amended to exclude the deputy bailiffs, but not to exclude all officers of the municipal court. I should like to make this point, that under the municipal court law as it now stands the majori- ty of the judges have the power of re- moval; the chief justice must approve the bonds of the deputy bailiffs before they can be sworn in, so that with re- gard to the deputy bailiffs, I do not believe that at this time there is any great demand that we should place them under civil service. I believe that it would be wise for us to place the clerk’s office under civil service, but to leave for the time being the deputy bailiffs under the control of the chief justice and the majority of the judges of the court, as is now provided by the present law; and if, in the working out of that system, it is found in the course of the next year or so that it is de- sirable to amend the law and to ex- tend the civil service to the deputy bailiffs as well, that, can be done in the proper time. I would, therefore, move, as a substitute for alternative b, the following: “The civil service law shall not apply to the deputy bailiffs of the municipal court.” THE CHAIRMAN : That is an amendment to Alderman Snow’s amend- ment. MR. McMILLAN: What becomes, then, of the motion made by Mr. Burke to lay on the table. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, there is an affirmative motion before the house, and it appears to me that the object of the convention is to give opportunity for the expression of opinion, and the only real convention meaning of “lay on the table” is to cut off debate, which, I understand, is opposed to the senti- ment of this convention. The question before the house is the amendment of Senator Jones to the amendment of Al- derman Snow, that section Will the Secretary read the record as it stands? December 6 161 1906 The Secretary read the record. MR. SNOW : Mr. Chairman, in order to make it read plainly I think the conjunction 1 1 but ’ ’ should be in- serted between the word “law” and the word 1 1 the. ’ ’ THE CHAIRMAN: For what pur- pose does Alderman Werno arise? MR. WERNO: I would like to say a word in reply to the gentleman’s re- marks. THE CHAIRMAN : I believe you -have spoken once on the subject and under the rules of the convention un- less you have the unanimous consent of the body — (The Chairman was here interrupted by cries of “Go ahead! ”) Alderman Werno has just stated that he would like to reply to Mr. Shanahan. MR. SHANAHAN : I would like to hear from the gentleman on the subject. MR. WERNO: I desire to call the gentleman ’s attention to the fact that we in the city council has that very same point in relation to our bridge tenders, in connection with the effort to put the bridge tenders under civil service. The same point was raised with regard to that. It is claimed that the bridge tender is put under bond and that he is responsible and the men he employs under him are responsible to him, and he in turn is responsible to the city, and for that reason it was claimed that the bridge tender and the men under him should not be put under civil service. Certain people thought the law should not be extended that far, but the Judiciary Committee of the city council and even the Finance Committee last year recommended to the city coun- cil that all bridge tenders be put under civil service notwithstanding. That is the point you make. MR. SHANAHAN: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that point holds good, be- cause a deputy bridge tender is in no way called upon to go out and serve writs and serve executions where the bridge tender would become liable for any amount of money; whereas, with a deputy marshal he may be sent out, at- tach a vessel that is worth $10,000 and his failure to do it within a certain time may cost the marshal that amount of money. MR. WERNO: It is the same thing with the bridge tender. The bridge tender may be derelict in his duty and an accident will occur, and the bridge tender to give bond to the city is liable for the damage to the vessel owner, in case of an accident to a vessel. MR. O’DONNELL: I notice along a little further under this head that under Clause 3 the bailiff and chief clerk of the municipal court shall be appointed by the judges of the municipal courts. Now, as to this last amendment exempt- ing the bailiff himself from the operation of the civil service in case we should adobt this clause here, why I i think he should be under civil service just as well as any of the deputies. This whole thing hinges on the fact that the chief bailiff gives a bond, a personal bond. That bond is supposed to reimburse any person who suffers from any illegal levies levied by the deputy bailiff in carrying out the mandate of the court in an un- lawful or harsh manner, or in any man- ner not intended by the law. There is certainly a great deal of room for thought in that, if this chief bailiff is responsible for the acts of his deputies. I take it that it is within the power of the municipal court to exact from each of the deputy bailiffs the same bond and the same qualification that a chief bailiff should have, and that would do away with the responsibility to the chief bailiff that this question which has been raised assumes. I think that with the court officers there is room for the civil service act to be applied. I think it should be applied to these officers par- | ticularly, and consequently I believe that the civil service law should apply to December 6 162 1906 every office which is a city office, and I believe that the municipal judges and the clerks and bailiffs of the courts are all city officers, and especially the bailiffs and clerks. There is no question about that, and I think the civil service law should apply to them as it does to any other city officer. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Alderman Ben- nett. MR. BENNETT: There is evidently some confusion created by the state- ments of Alderman Werno in reference to the bridge tenders. In the ease of the bridge tenders the action would lie against the City of Chicago for an in- jury done; whereas in the case of a bailiff or sheriff, if he has in his poses- sion a writ properly authorizing him to perform his duty, there could be no re- dress against the city or the court for an improper execution of that writ. The liability on the part of the bailiff arises out of the wrongful act or mistaken act of a deputy, and the redress of the person injured is against the bailiff and not against the city or against the court. Unless the bailiff has some means of con- trolling the men in his office he has no way of saving himself from personal damages by reason of the wrongful ex- ecution of writs. MR. LINEHAN: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Linehan. MR. LINEHAN : It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the most important point in this matter is as to who pays the freight, who pays the salary of these peo- ple. Does the City of Chicago pay it or does it not? Now, if the City of Chi- cago pays the salaries of the judges and bailiffs and everything else connected with it, and the rest of the city is under civil service, why should any single party be reserved and put outside of civil ser- vice? I think we are begging the ques- tion here, and after we have devoted ourselves to politics and wiped out the party circles we are now proposing on the part of some people to preserve them from civil service and keep their own little machines for politics. The city pays the salaries of everybody connected with these places and after we have decided that we shall no longer have the party columns and party circles why should we reserve this for any particular party and not have them come under the civil service law ? I want to tell you this much, that if these court officers had been elected at the last election by the Democratic party every newspaper in the city unanimously would be out with double-headed editorials at the present time demanding that they be put under civil service. MR. POWERS: Is it not a fact that the deputy bailiffs, before they receive their commissions, are compelled to give an indemnifying bond to the bailiff in a large amount of money for the faithful performance of their duty, and for any damages that may arise by virtue of the performance of their duty? I would like to ask any gentleman here if that is not a fact, that they have got to give a bond of $50,000 to $100,000 for the faithful performance of their duty? Not the chief bailiff, but every one of them has to give an indemnifying bond. MR. ROBINS: The question in- volves, Mr. Chairman — MR. POWERS: I would like to have some gentleman answer that question who is advised on that point, if that is not a fact that they have to give an in- demnifying bond to the chief bailiff. MR. SHANAHAN: Yes. MR. POWERS: Yes, undoubtedly they have to, in order to protect the chief bailiff against any loss. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you through, Senator? MR. POWERS: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Robins. MR. ROBINS: It seems to me that the question involved in the matter be- fore this convention is just simply this, December 6 163 1906 whether some part of the city govern- ment shall be reserved for the spoils system, or whether all of it shall be di- vorced from the spoils system. Now, upon that question the gentlemen may have different opinions, but there is one view of it, it seems to me, nearly all fairminded men will unite in, and that is that the worst place to reserve the spoils system is in the administration of the people’s courts. In so far as the super- vision of the judges is concerned, there is not a man that is not familiar with the complete failure of that supervision upon the clerks of the circuit and other courts within the past year, and within the common knowledge of every man in this room. It subjects the judges to po- litical influence, and prevents the judges from exercising their views freely, as men should. It is no protection, it is a sham protection so far as any claim of its being protection to the public is concerned, and it is a burden upon the judges. The judges should not be re- quired to bear that burden and the civil service commission should bear that burden, it seems to me. It seems to me, further, Mr. Chair- man, that the matter of the bailiffs of the people’s courts is possibly the most powerful form of the spoils system that can be established or maintained in the City of Chicago. There is no man in this room that is not familiar with the power of the police court in municipal politics. There is no man in this room who is not familiar with the operation of the constable upon the poor, and when I speak as I am speaking I am mindful not so much of politics, or political or- ganizations on the one hand or the other, as I am mindful of the actual oppres- sive operation of the spoils system in the people’s courts. It is not so much the party advantage that concerns me as the fact that these men being backed by powerful political support can oppress the poor, and oppress the poor at a point where they have the smallest op- portunity of relief. There is not a man in this room familiar with the transactions in the Maxwell street and Desplaines street police courts and in the various police courts of this city that is not familiar with the operation of the justice courts and the police courts in their oppression upon that portion of the community that has least articulate voice in public things and public matters, and public motives. Now, I can conceive of no act of this Convention that would be more con- temptible and unworthy than not to leave the matter of the police courts and municipal courts free so that they could be put under civil service as the need for civil service seems to justify it. I believe it justifies it now. Insofar as that argument of the mar- shals of the United States court is con- cerned, no man in this room familiar with those courts but knows that those marshals were not exempted from civil service because of their bonds or obliga- tions, but because they were the most powerful cogs in the federal machine throughout this entire country, and it is the same sort of thing from our point of view that is being argued here this afternoon. It seems to me Mr. Chairman, that whatever difficulty there may be in the law or in the arrangement of the bonds, that those difficulties have arisen pur- posely because they wished to protect this group from civil service, or because they arose out of a system before civil service became a dominant idea in mu- nicipal and general government in this country. Any of those provisions can be changed by an act of the legislature or by an act of congress, and I take it that no man familiar with public af- fairs in this room questions but that they will be changed and that the entire pub- lic service practically will come in time under the control of an intelligent civil December 6 164 1906 service that will keep the officers edu- cated and informed as to their duties, and carrying on those duties from year to year over a long period of time, and giving, if you please, the best service to the public in all departments of the pub- lic service. MR. M’GOORTY: Mr. Chairman, I think the objection made by Mr. Shana- han posscesses much apparent force, but I believe it can be obviated by requir- ing the bonds of the chief and deputy bailiffs to run to the city of Chicago. The civil service or the merit law or whatever you may term it is to pro- mote efficiency in the public service; re- quiring an original entrance examination that will cause men of experience to be chosen to serve public writs and to dis- charge the administrative functions of the court. Now, if these bonds run to the city of Chicago any private person injured my sue in the name of the city of Chicago on that bond, and he will have all the securities that he can have under the private bonds, the personal bonds, that are now running from the deputy bailiffs to the chief bailiff. But, being simply a business condition, and there being no objection to the application or to the extension of the merit system to the baliffs themselves, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, it is a matter or a dif- ficulty which could easily be obviated, and it is too simple a matter and too easily obviated to have it waived against the greater and weightier arguments in favor or the greatest possible efficiency in the administration of the judiciary departments of the government. MR. O’DONNELL: Mr. Chairman, I move that this whole question here about the civil service applying to the bailiffs particularly, be referred to the Law Committee for an opinion, and on that motion I desire to say this: The courts are carried on as a gov- ernmental function, and any hardship that may be suffered by the people be- cause of the carrying on that govern- mental function has no redress. There is no redress for them. Nor can the city become liable in its governmental capa- city, and to make a bond to the city pre- supposes that the city is liable, which it cannot be in exercising a governmental function as distinguished from the pri- vate works of the city. And, as a con- sequence I suppose that that is the pur- pose that they have made the individual committed by virtue of his office, because his principal would not be liable because they are exercising a governmental func- tion. That is, I think, the reason for it all, and that is such a mighty reason that it is worth while referring this par- ticular subject to the Law Committee for an opinion. If we can apply the civil service lawfully to these positions, why, we should do so. If we cannot, we ought to know it at the earliest possible mo- ment, and I make that motion, Mr. Presi- dent, and I hope I may get a second so that we may have an opinion from the Law Committee. MR. SHANAHAN: I would like to ask Mr. O ’Donnell if his motion will just apply to civil service as to the bailiffs and not apply as to the municipal courts? MR. O’DONNELL: Yes, I limit it to that question. THE CHAIRMAN: Now, what is Mr. O ’Donnell ’s motion ? (Mr. O’Donnell’s motion was read by the Secretary.) THE CHAIRMAN: Now, Mr. O’Don- nell, you referred to bailiffs. You simply mean bailiffs, you do not desire to include clerks, but you simply mean the bailiffs? MR. O’DONNELL: I think it is plain that the clerks can be included, the only thing is as to the bailiffs. I would move that the matter in reference to municipal courts be referred to the Law Committee as to bailiffs and clerks, too. MR. SHANAHAN: That is Sec- tion b? December 6 165 1906 MR. O ’DONNELL : Section b, yes. | MR. ROSENTHAL: I want to say that I believe it would be quite useless to refer this particular matter to the Law Committee, and for this reason the Law Committee can state that it is a governmental function or not a gov- ernmental function, that it is a matter of local concern or state concern, but whether it is the one or the other does not cut any figure so far as merit is concerned. If the merit system is ap- plicable, it is applicable to these very officers whether they are a matter of state or purely a matter of local con- cern. Now, another thought: This whole matter was presented to the supreme court at the time that the municipal court act was before the court, but the supreme court found that it was not necessary to decide that very question although many of us thought it would have to decide that question. They dodged the ques- tion, and so the Law Committee, until the supreme court has passed upon this thing cannot give any definite expression to it nor regarding it. Now, such eminent authorities as Judge Tuley and Judge Campbell and others have said that this was a matter of state and general concern and not a matter of local concern, at all, and that is one reason we argue that the municipal court applying as it did only to the city of Chicago and creating a separate court here was not constitutional. The Law Committee would find itself simply wandering in the dark in determining this question, and inasmuch as it is not necessary for the purpose of our con- vention here 1 move to lay this last motion on the table. THE CHAIRMAN: As I understand Mr. O’Donnell’s motion, his motion is to refer the question of placing the municipal courts under civil service to the Law Committee for the purpose of ascertaining the extent that the city has power so to do. I make this explanation so the record may be clear. Mr. Rosen- thal moves that that motion lie on the table, and upon that motion the Secre- tary will call the roll, upon the motion to lay upon the table. Yeas — Baker, Beilfuss, Bennett, Brown, Burke, Cole, Crilly, Dixon, G. W. ; Eckhart, J. W. ; Gansbergen, Lath- rop, Linehan, McGoorty, McKinley, Mer- riam, Owens, Powers, Rosenthal, Seth- ness, Shedd, Thompson, Vopicka, Werno, Young, Zimmer — 25. Nays — Beebe, Church, Dever, Eckhart, B. A. ; Erickson, Guerin, Haas, Hill, Hoyne, Jones, Kittleman, MacMillan, O ’Donnell, Post, Raymer, Revell, Robins, Shanahan, Shepard, Snow, Sunny, Tay- lor, White, Wilkins— 24. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon Mr. Rosen- thal ’s motion to lay Mr. O ’Donnell ’s mo- tion upon the table, the yeas are 25 and the nays are 24. The motion to lay on the table is carried. THE CHAIRMAN: The question now is upon Senator Jones’ amendment. MR. BURKE: Mr. Chairman, point of order. THE CHAIRMAN : State your point of order. MR. BURKE: Alderman Snow’s mo- tion in reference to the introduction of civil service in the municipal courts was the first motion, and upon that there was a motion to lay upon the table. The Chairman then gave the members of the Convention an opportunity to debate. I feel now, Mr. Chairman, that I am en- titled to a roll call on the motion to lay upon the table. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman is correct. The motion to lay Alderman Snow’s motion on the table was made be- fore Senator Jones’ amendment and should be the next motion put, and if there is no objection the vote will now be taken upon Mr. Burke’s motion to lay Mr. Snow’s motion upon the table. December 6 166 1906 MR. SNOW: I rise for a point of in- formation. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Snow. MR. SNOW: I rise, Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of indicating a willing- ness on the part of the mover of the mo- tion to accept the substitute or amend- ment offered by Senator Jones. Can that be done with the motion being made for tabling? MR. BURKE: It is. too late now. THE CHAIRMAN: As long as the motion to table is before the house it will have to be put and after that is dis- posed of the matter can come up. Sen- ator Jones’ amendment will then come up. MR. SNOW: I would like to ask the mover of that motion to withdraw that for a moment in order that there may be only one matter before the house. MR. BURKE: I wish to say that I do not at this time desire to withdraw the motion. THE CHAIRMAN: You do not de- sire to? MR. BURKE: No, I do not desire to withdraw it at the present time. MR. SNOW : Then, Mr. Chairman, I desire to withdraw the motion I origin- ally made and I ask the permission of the Convention to allow me to do that. THE CHAIRMAN: Alderman Snow withdraws the motion and the motion to table naturally goes with it, so the origi- nal matter of Senator Jones’ motion is before the house. MR. JONES: I wish now to offer the motion which I presented and dis- cussed a few minutes ago. MR. POWERS: I believe the mover of a motion must have the consent of the second in order to withdraw his motion. THE CHAIRMAN : The only thing before the house properly was Alderman Snow ’s motion. MR. POWERS: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Burke moved to lay that on the table. MR. POWERS: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Alderman Snow withdrew his motion. MR. POWERS: Well, can’t he do that without the consent of this Conven- tion? THE CHAIRMAN: That certainly ought to satisfy the man who votes to lay on the table. MR. POWERS: Well, I want to raise that point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: There is no ob- jection to a man making a motion — MR. LINEHAN : Point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Linehan. MR. LINEHAN: After a matter has been before the house and debated, it does not lie within the province of the Chair or anybody else to take any such position when we are ready to vote on it. The laying of this matter on the table would settle this matter right now and you propose to take it back so it cannot be voted on. THE CHARIMAN : There is no need of any heat in this matter, Mr. Line- han. The Chair is trying to get this matter so that everybody will have his say and bring the question before the house for an affirmative vote. MR. LINEHAN : Allow me to in- form the Chair that my emphasis of my words is no indication of heat. You do not have to pass on the question of heat at all. THE CHAIRMAN: The right of Alderman Snow to withdraw his motion has been challenged. MR. SNOW: Then, Mr. Chairman, I ask that the matter be put to a vote of the Convention in regard to withdrawing that amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you desire a roll call upon that? MR. SNOW: No. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor of permitting Alderman Snow to withdraw his motion will signify it by saying aye; opposed no. The ayes have it and the request is granted . December 6 167 1906 Upon request the ayes and nays were ordered. Ayes — Baker, Beebe, Beilfuss, Ben- nett, Brown, Church, Cole, Crilly, Dever, Dixon, G. W. ; Eckhart, B. A. ; Eckhart, J. W. ; Erickson, Gransbergen, Guerin, Haas, Hill, Hoyne, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, MacMillan, McGoorty, McKinley, Merriam, O ’Donnell, Owens, Post, Raymer, Revell, Robins, Rosenthal, Sethness, Shanahan, Shedd, Snow, Sunny, Taylor, Vopicka, White, Wilkins, Young —43. Nays — Powers, Shepard, Zimmer — 3. (During Roll Call.) MR. BURKE: Mr. Chairman, so that there may be no hard feelings in this good body, and with the consent of Alderman Snow I will withdraw my mo- tion to lay Alderman Snow’s motion on the table: THE SECRETARY: How do you vote? THE CHAIRMAN: The roll call will proceed. MR. WERNO: Mr. Chairman, the whole vote amounts to nothing. There is no question about the rule that when a matter is presented to a body and it is debated it cannot be withdrawn with- out the unanimous consent of this body, and it is evident that unanimous consent is not given to withdraw. MR. BENNETT: A point of infor- mation, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bennett. MR. BENNETT: As I understand it the roll call is now upon Mr. Burke ’s motion to table. (Cries of “No.”) MR. BENNETT: Just a moment, now ; just a moment. Alderman Snow rose to make another motion and it was not seconded and was not put. VOICES: We are voting on that now. MR. BENNETT: We are voting on the motion to table now. VOICES: No. THE CHAIRMAN: tinue the roll call. There are but three voices against the unanimous consent, and under Robert’s Rules of Order, which are somewhat uncertain, Section 17 provides that when a question is be- fore the assembly and the mover wishes to withdraw or modify or substitute a different one in its place, if no one ob- jects the presiding officer grants per- mission; if any objection is made it will be necessary to obtain leave to withdraw. It does not say what this leave shall be, whether the majority shall give leave or whether it is by partial consent. How- ever, the matter is before the house. The Chair does not desire to withhold from anybody the right to cast an affirmative vote on this proposition. MR. JONES: Do I understand Aider- man Snow has been given permission to withdraw this? THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is in doubt. There were three voices against a unanimous consent, and Robert ’s Rules of Order is silent on what constitutes leave. The Chair will rule, however, that necessary leave has been given to with- draw the motion, and there is no motion before the house at present. MR. JONES: I move, then, as a sub- stitute for alternative b my substitute. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Jones’ the civil service law shall not apply to the deputy bailiffs of the municipal court. MR. M’GOORTY: Mr. Chairman, I move to lay Senator Jones’ motion on the table. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Post has the floor. MR. POST : I want to speak about this motion to lay on the table. The Chairman, it seems to me, has in a spirit 1 of entire fairness, so that debate should not be cut off, allowed full debate upon a motion to lay on the table. This prac- tice that we have adopted here of bring- ing every motion to a vote, upon a mo- , tion to lay upon the table, that is to ! say, calling up to vote upon a subsidiary We will con- December 6 168 1906 # motion instead of the principal question is a bad practice and while, of course, I can make no motion to stop it, and I do not know as the Chairman would en- tertain such a motion, I do wish that the members of this Convention would consider that we are here for the purp'ose of passing directly upon questions, and unless they move to lay upon the table for a regularly parlimentary purpose, I believe that we should allow these questions to go to a vote upon the prin- cipal question and not upon subsidiary questions, and not pass in this way upon a whole lot of matters, which at any time some one may move to take off the table. I hope a different practice will be ob- served hereafter. Mr. Chairman, let uff have a fair, open vote. THE CHAIRMAN: I hope that Mr McGoorty is convinced. (Cries of roll call.) THE CHAIRMAN: I believe that Mr. McGoorty ’s motion was to lay Sen- ator Jones’ motion upon the table. Mr. McGoorty: I will withdraw the motion, if there is any advantage in vot- ing that down. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair hopes there will be substantially unanimous consent, and the Secretary will read the resolution as now before the house and will proceed to call the roll. (The Secretary read the amendment of Mr. Jones.) Yeas — Baker, Beebe, Bennett, Brown, Church, Crilly, Erickson, Haas, Hill, Jones, Kittleman, MacMillan, O’Donnell, Pendarvis, Raymer, Shanahan, Shepard, Snow — 18. Nays — Beilfuss, Burke, Cole, Dever, Dixon, G. W. ; Eckhart, B. A. ; Eckhart, J. W. ; Gansbergen, Guerin, Hoyne, Lath- rop, Linehan, McGoorty, McKinley, Mer- riam, Owens, Post, Powers, Revell, Rob- ins, Rosenthal, Sethness, Shedd, Sunny, Taylor, Thompson, Yopicka, Werno, White, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 32. THE CHAIRMAN: Gntlemen, you have heard the motion of Mr. Burke upon the adoption of Alternative B as amend- ed by him. (Cries of “Roll Call.”) THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Beilfuss, Burke, Cole, Qrflly, Dever, Dixon, G. W. ; Eckhart, B. A.; Eckhart, J. W. ; Gansbergen, Guerin, Hoyne, Jones, Lathrop, Linehan, Mc- Goorty, McKinley, Merriam, Owens, Post, Powers, Raymer, Revell, Robins, Rosenthal, Sethness, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Snow, Sunny, Taylor, Thomp- son, Yopicka, Werno, White, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 38. Nays — Baker, Bennett, Brown, Church, Hill, Kittleman, MacMillan, O ’Donnell — 8 . (During roll call.) MR, JONES: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jones. MR. JONES: May I explain my vote? I believe that the substitute should have been passed because of the legal ques- tions involved. As I am in favor of civil service generally I shall vote aye, how- ever. THE CHAIRMAN : Upon Mr. Burke ’s motion to strike out the word “not” in Alternative B the vote is: Yeas, 38 ; nays, 8 ; and the motion is carried. THE CHAIRMAN: The next vote is upon Alternative to 1 a. MR. B. A. ECKHART: Mr. Chair- man. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Eckhart. Will Mr. Eckhart permit the Secretary to read the Alternative? (The Secretary read the Alternative to 1 A as it appears in the proceedings at page 52.) THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Eckhart has the floor. MR. B. A. ECKHART: Mr. Chair- man, I move the adoption of Alternative to 1 A, and on that motion I wish to say this: That I am a strong advocate December 6 169 1906 of civil service and I believe in civil serv- ice. But I believe the public interests will be better subserved if this were embodied in the charter. If the consolidation is effected that is propesed, the three park systems of Chicago would be con- solidated and become part of the city government. In such an event, in my judgment, the employes of the three park systems who have served efficiently and faithfully, and whose experience en- ables them to render valuable service ought to be continued in that system. If they were subjected to the rules and regulations of civil service, with per- haps an age limit, they might be ex- cluded from the service of the parks. This would deprive the public of their services and would be unfair and unjust to the employes. After the park systems have been fully organized it can be provided either through the city council or otherwise that the civil service shall apply. In such an event the public will have the benefit of these faithful servanth, these experi- enced men, and only justice would be done to the employes now in the employ of the park systems, and I am, therefore, in favor of the adoption of this Alterna- tive. MB. LATHROP: Mr. Chairman, I de- sire to offer an amendment to this Al- ternative. I will read the amendment and then explain my reasons for it: By striking out the words “until the city council shall by ordinance so pro- vide, M and substituting the words, “ex- cept as provided in the section relating to parks . f 1 My object in offering this motion is simply this: That in the section relating to parks this matter will come up under a recommendation made by the committee and I suggest that the Convention con- sider the question of applying the civil service rules to the parks in connection with the other matter relating to the parks which will then be before this Con- vention for consideration. Thisprovides that it shall not apply until the city council shall provide by ordinance. Now when it comes to the consideration of all the questions in connection with the parks the Convention may decide to adopt some other form of resolution in regard to the civil service. I am not op- posed to civil service in the least, but it is merely a suggestion that you defer the consideration of it until you have all the questions in relation to the parks before you for consideration. MR. SHANAHAN: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shanahan. MR. SHANAHAN: Mr. Chairman, I am someyhat surprised at the stand taken by Mr. Eckhart in regard to this Alterna- tive to No. 1, especially so after hearing the speeches this afternoon in this Con- vention giving reasons why the municipal courts and other departments should be put under the civil service law. If there is any department in the city of Chicago that ought to be put under the civil service and controlled by civil service it is the great park sys- tems of the city of Chicago. We, in the south division of the city of Chicago, think we have the grandest park system in the world, and for years in that sys- tem they have had the civil service rule. They have employes there in that South Park system who have been employed for upward of thirty years, ranging from thirty years down to two years, and we know of no reason why they should be excluded from the civil service law. We all know that if the department of parks comes under the civil service law that the employes now there will be the same as the employes who were in the city hall in 1895 when the city civil service act went into force. They will be hold-over employes. They will not have the right of trial ; they will not be protected by the civil service, but they can be retained there by the park management when the management knows that they are good December 6 170 1906 and faithful servants. But if we put the park systems under civil service the same as all other deparments of the city we have got the entrance, and that is the principal thing. Every man, hereafter, who will desire employment in the parks will have to take a civil service exami- nation to enter the service. T wish we could put every man now employed in the park systems under the civil service law and have them protected by the civil service law. We cannot do that. It will be a grave mistake, how- ever, to exclude the parks. What will happen if you do so? The moment that the civil service law goes into effect when the common council passes an ordinance providing that the parks will come under civil service, they will immediately turn out every man and put in whom they de- sire in their places before the law goes into effect. I hope, gentlemen, that this Convention will say now and here that the park systems of Chicago will come under the civil service law the same as every other branch of the city govern- ment. MR. COLE : Mr. Chairman, we are now going on record here for an ideal and we are mixing up too much in the details. I believe in standing for the ideal and the most complete and thor- ough going civil service that is possible, to be applied to every human being that works for the city of Chicago. I be- lieve they all ought to be put under civil service without any ifs and the only way to do is to vote down every- thing that tends to the contrary. MR. WILKINS: Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute, that the civil service law shall apply to the department of Public Parks. I offer that as a sub- | stitute for the motion. MR. SNOW : I second that substi- j tute. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wilkins of- j fers a substitute for the original and the amendment offered by Mr. Lath- rop, and the Secretary will read the substitute. (The Secretary read Mr. Wilkins’ substitute as hereinbefore stated.) MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute for all the substi- tutes that have so far been offered. MR. POST : Point of order, Mr. Chairman, there are two amendments be- fore the house. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Chair get his bearings for a moment. There was an original motion and Mr. Lath- rop amended it and Mr. Wilkins amended the amendment. MR. WILKINS: This is offered as a substitute. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair finds no place in Roberts’ Rules of Order that recognizes the word substitute, and the yellow book says that there cannot be an amendment to an amendment to an amendment. MR. LATHROP: Perhaps I can simplify this matter by saying that I am in favor of applying civil service to the parks, and if that can be brought before the house by withdrawing my amendment I would be glad to do it. THE CHAIRMAN: Will the Secre- tary read Mr. Rosenthal’s substitute? THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Rosen- thal: The application of the civil ser- vice law to the department of public parks shall not operate in and of itself to discharge the present employes. MR. RAYMER: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will rule that that is not a substitute nor an amendment. MR. RAYMER: That is not ger- mane to the question. THE CHAIRMAN: It has applica- tion simply to details. Does Mr. Rosen- thal desire to discuss the matter? MR. ROSENTHAL: No. I rise to a point of order: I understood Mr. Lathrop was willing to accept that for his motion. December 6 171 1906 ME. LATHEOP: I will accept that | amendment to the motion. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, all right, when we reach it. Your motion was to adopt the resolution as printed. Mr. Lathrop amended it and Mr. Wilkins [ presented a substitute for the entire matter, and until the consideration of the question arises on the original mat- ter which you move the adoption of you cannot accept Mr. Rosenthal ’ s amend- ment. MR. B. A. ECKHART : I under- stand, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Lathrop has withdrawn his motion. MR. RAYMER : Mr. Chairman, point of order. Mr. Lathrop, as I understand it, did not withdraw the amendment, but he made the statement that if a substi- tute could be offered covering the mat- ter and agreeing with his idea he would be glad to withdraw his substitute. MR. LATHROP: Mr. Chairman, may the Secretary read Mr. Wilkins’ amendment? THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read it. The Secretary read Mr. Wilkins’ amendment, as hereinbefore stated. MR. LATHROP: I accept that amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: It occurs to the Chair that a vote upon Mr. Wilkins’ amendment would clear matters very much. The Secretary will call the roll upon Mr. Wilkins’ substitute. (The Secretary began calling the roll when interrupted.) (During roll call.) MR. POWERS: I move you that the roll call be dispensed with. THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor of the motion will signify by saying * 1 A ve. ’ ’ The motion prevailed. THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor of Mr. Wilkin’s substitute signify by say- ing “ Aye. ’ ’ The motion prevailed. MR. ROSENTHAL: I ask for a vote on my substitute. THE SECRETARY read: “The ap- plication of the civil service law to the Department of Public Parks shall not operate in and of itself to discharge the pdesent employes.” MR. O’DONNELL: I move its adop- tion. MR. B. A. ECKHART: Just one word. There is no man in this Con- vention that will go any farther than I will in favor of civil service. I have not only advocated it in the past, but have practiced it, and we have civil service to-day in the West Park sys- tem. My only purpose in offering the orig- inal motion that that provision be adopted providing that the efficient and faithful servants of the park system may be retained was that the city council, or whoever may have charge of the parks, might adopt rules and regula- tions by which they might be excluded, and that they might be excluded on ac- count of the age limit. Two years ago, when the committee that had in charge the preparation of the bill which resulted in the legislature creating the municipal court and con- solidation of the park system, that sub- ject was discussed, and such men as John P. Wilson, Mayor Harrison, John E. Miller and others on that commit- tee considered that it was essential and necessary to make some provision, so that these men may be retained in the service. 7 will vote for any civil service pro- vision anywhere and at any time, but I think we should make some provision that those men who have been in the park system for fifteen or twenty-five .years and have given faithful and efficient service may be retained and I not thrown out and others substituted, so that the public will love their vain- able services. They have had experi- ence and are familiar with every detail December 6 172 1906 of the parks. That was the only rea- son for moving the adoption of the provision, and I am heartily in favor of the substitute offered by the gentleman on my right, and I hope it will prevail. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is on the adoption of Mr. Rosenthal ’& res- olution. As many as favor the adoption signify by saying “Aye.” Opposed, “No.” The motion prevailed. MR. BURKE: I voted in the affirm- ative, and I would like to have my vote so shown. THE CHAIRMAN: The next matter before the house is No. 1, and when that is disposed of we will take up the other. MR. SHEPARD: I rise to move the adoption of No. 1 as amended. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion that No. 1 as amended be adopted. A MEMBER: It has not been amended. MR. SHEPARD: Assuming that No. 1 was amended so as to include civil service in the municipal court; second, the park system; third, that provision be made to protect the old employes. THE CHAIRMAN : As many as fa- vor No. 1 as amended say “Aye.” The motion prevailed. MR. ROSENTHAL: Before we pro- ceed with civil service, it seems to me that we ought to have disposed entire- ly of the matter of elections. No. 6, that was proposed by me the other night, is still before the house, and that was the recommendation of our Committee on Election. THE CHAIRMAN: That relates to the term of office of mayor. MR. ROSENTHAL: No, Mr. Chair- man, it relates to elective city officers. It is on page 152, after Mr. Revell’s alternative to No. 6. The Secretary then read, at page 152 of the proceedings, Mr. Rosenthal's resolution. MR. SHEPARD: I don’t see the propriety of going back to Chapter 4 until we have finished up Chapter 5. THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct. MR. SHEPARD: I desire to move you, sir, continuing with Chapter 5, that No. 3 be placed on file. MR. SNOW: No. 2 hasn’t been taken care of yet. THE CHAIRMAN : The gentleman is correct. The Secretary will read No. 2. The Secretary then read No. 2 as it appears in the proceedings at page 52. MR. GUERIN: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to offer to No. 2. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Guerin: Members of the classified service of any department may be suspended by the head of any department for any cause specified in writing which will promote the efficiency of the service. They shall be given an opportunity to answer the charges in writing and shall be entitled to a formal hearing. The civil service commission shall have power to investigate the cause of any suspension and reinstate the person so suspended. No suspenion shall be made for political or religious reasons, or other cause prejudicial to the efficiency of the public service. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard Dr. Guerin’s substitute for No. 2 to Section 5. MR. GUERIN : I just want to make one remark in regard to that. It seems to me that No. 2, as it is here, is con- trary to the spirit of civil service. For example, the mayor has the power to appoint the civil service commission. He also has the power to appoint the heads of departments. Now, then, when a new administration comes into power it permits the mayor to go back into- the old spoils system, so called, — in other words, through the heads of the departments, he can have any one re- moved whom he pleases for any bad cause, and that person who is so re- moved is deprived of a hearing, and, therefore, I offer that as a substitute. December 6 173 1906 MR. ROSENTHAL: In order that the matter may be clearly before this house, I will ask that the recommenda- tions of our committee on the question of civil service be heard at this time, and then I wish to say a word on this subject. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary read the report as printed, and then read Dr. Guerin’s substitute, so that the matter may be fully under- stood. THE SECRETARY: We propose the following amendments to “AN ACT to Regulate Civil Serv- ice of Cities,” approved March 20, 1895: FIRST — That Section I of said Act be amended by changing the term of the commissioners from three to six years. SECOND — 8hat Section IX of said Act be amended so as to read as fol- lows: Section IX. Promotions. The com- mission shall, by its rules, provide for promotions in such classified service on the basis of ascertained merit and seni- ority in service and examination, and shall provide that vacancies shall be filled by promotion in all cases where, in the judgment of the commission after consultation with the head of the de- partment in which the vacancy exists, it will be for the best interests of the service so to fill such vacancy. If, in the judgment of the commission, it is not in the best interests of the service to fill such vacancy by promotional ex- amination, then such vacancy shall be filled by an original entrance examina- tion; provided, however, that the com- mission shall in its rules fix upon a credit based upon ascertained merit and seniority in service, to be given to all employers in the classified service in line of promotion who submit them- selves to such examination. All promo- tional examinations shall be competi- tive among such members of the next lower rank or grade as desire to submit themselves to such examination, and it shall be the duty of the commission to submit to the appointing power the names of not more than three applicants for each promotion having the highest rating. The method of examination and the rules governing the same, and the method of certifying a promotion shall be the same as provided for applicants for original appointment. THIRD— That Section XII of said Act be amended so as to read as fol- lows: Section XII. Removals and Reduc- tion. Removals from the classified service or reduction in grade or com- pensation, or both, may be made in any department of the service by the head of such department for any cause which will promote the efficiency of the serv- ice, but only on written specifications by the officer making the removal or reduction, and the person sought to be removed or reduced shall have notice and shall be served with a copy of the specifications and be allowed reasonable time for answering the same in writing, and a copy of the notice, specifications, answer, and of the order of removal or reduction, shall be filed with the civil service commission. Said commission, or some officer or board appointed by said commission for the purpose, shall investigate any removal or reduction which said commission has reason to believe has not been made in accord- ance with the provisions of this sec- tion, and said commission may in any case investigate any removal or reduc- tion or cause the same to be investi- gated by some officer or board appoint- ed by said commission to conduct such investigation, and then, in accordance | with the fundings of said commission or the officer or board so appointed to I conduct said investigation, approve or disapprove the same. The finding and decision of such commission or investi- I gating officer or board, when approved December 6 174 1906 by said commission, shall in every case by final, and shall be certified to the appointing officer and shall be forth- with enforced by such officer. A copy of said papers in each case shall be made a part of the record of the di- vision of the service in which the re- moval or reduction is made. Nothing in this act shall limit the power of an officer to suspend a subordinate for a reasonable period, not exceeding thirty days. In the course of an investiga- tion of charges, each member of the commission and of any board so ap- pointed by it, and any officer so ap- pointed, shall have the power to admin- ister oaths and shall have the power to secure by its subpoena both the at- tendance and testimony of witnesses, and the productin of books and papers relevant to such investigation. Noth- ing in this section shall be construed to require such charges or investigation in cases of laborers or persons having the custody of public money for the safe keeping of which another person has given bonds. It is sugested that a new section be inserted after Section XX, to read as follows: No applicant for examination for any office or place of employment in said classified service shall wilfully or cor- ruptly, by himself or in co-operation with one or more other persons, deceive the said commission with reference to his identity, or wilfully or corruptly make false representations in his ap- plication for such examination, or com- mit any fraud for the purpose of im- proving his prospects or chances in such examination. THE CHAIRMAN: The matter is before the house on Dr. Guerin’s mo- tion to substitute his resolution for the resolution reported by the committee. MR. ROSENTHAL: This matter was considered quite at length before our Committee on Municipal Elections, and 1 believe in reference to these particu- lar provisions that have just been read. The vote of our committee was unani- mous in favor of those provisions. Those provisions were substantially adopted by the committee, referred to by Mr. Cole a short time ago, and ap- pointed by President Brundage. I wish to say, however, that since our report became known, and especially since the Committee on Rules has suggested this particular proposition, there has been much opposition to this proposition from various quarters which are en- titled to a hearing. I have before me at the present time a lengthy document submitted to me by various bureau heads of the city gov- ernment objecting very strenuously to this proposition and setting forth the reasons. I believe these men ought to be given another hearing before our Committee on Election and Appoint- ments and Tenure of Office. They claim they did not know that this particular subject was up, and just for that rea- son, Mr. Chairman, I move to refer proposition No. 2 to the Committee on Elections, Appointments and Tenure of Office, to report at a subsequent meet- ing of this Convention. MR. FISHER: I think there should be some limit of time when that com- mittee should report. It ought not to be later than some date, say after next week, when it should be fixed. MR. ROSENTHAL: Within ten days. MR. FISHER: Within ten days. MR. ROSENTHAL: I accept that amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the amendment? MR. MacMILLAN: The motion as made does not carry with it Dr. Guer- in ’s amendment. MR. ROSENTHAL: Yes, the whole matter. THE CHAIRMAN: That will take the entire subject. Gentlemen, you have heard Mr. Rosenthal’s motion that December 6 175 1906 this matter, together with Dr. Guerin’s substitute, be resubmitted to the Com- mitte on Elections, Appointments and Tenure of Office, with instructions to report within ten days. MR. O’DONNELL: I have another matter I would like to go with it. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the matter be read. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. O’Don- nell: Provided, that the city council shall adopt, by ordinance, rules for the government of each city department, and the conduct of the work and busi- ness of such department, prescribing the duties and deportment of the em- ployes of such city department, so that the employes of the city may know the rules of their respective departments and what their duties are and how they should conduct themselves. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion of Mr. Rosen- thal. As many as favor it signify by saying “Aye.” The motion prevailed. MR. WILKINS: We voted a while ago, and passed it, that the present employes of the park system be re- tained. I wish to offer it in order as a substitute to that vote. It is too late, is it? THE CHAIRMAN: It is too late. MR. WILKINS: Can we open that again? THE CHAIRMAN: It may be re- considered, unless you desire to offer the suggestion in the form of an inde- pendent resolution. MR. WILKINS: Well, I will make j it as an independent resolution. I will do anything to get to offer this that | I have. I think the present employes who are young enough are better pre- j pa^ed to pass an examination for work to be done than anybody that we could get on the outside, and I offer this as a provision making arrangements for persons who are employed now and that ! are past the age limit, that the civil I service shall not apply to them, but ! that it shall apply to all men who are young enough to take the examination, and are employed there. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would i suggest that that would probably come | before the Convention as an independ- ent resolution — not being germane to the question disposed of. MR. COLE: I would like to remind the Convention once more that we are adopting a charter and not a code. THE CHAIRMAN: That is a dis- tinction that might be borne in mind. The Secretary will read No. 3. The Secretary then read No. 3 as it appears in the proceedings at page 52. MR. SHEPARD: I move you, sir, that this section, paragraph 3, be placed on file. I do it for this reason. In the first place, I think it is inoppor- tune to revise the municipal court act at this time. But more important than that, I think it is dangerous and in- advisable to now place upon the munic- ipal court judges the political function of selecting and electing these officers. We have kept aloof from that thus far in this Convention, and I sincerely hope we will continue to do so. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion. It is moved and seconded that No. 3, of Section 5, be placed on file. MR. POST: What does “placing on file” mean? THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair has construed placing on file and laying on the table synonymous. MR. ROSENTHAL: I don’t think Mr. Shepard’s suggestions are tenable, because if they come under the merit system, the temptation to appoint par- ticular men and the pressure that will be used for the purpose of appointing particular men will be removed. We all agree on one proposition, and that is that the number of elective officers shall be reduced, so far as pos- sible, in order that the people may December 6 176 1906 vote intelligently. If the judges are not to appoint the chief bailiffs and the chief clerks of the municipal court, where is that appointment to be lodged? You can certainly rely upon the judges for the purpose of making correct ap- pointments in that respect. The judges are better informed as to what partic- ular duties are required. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any fur- ther discussion upon this subject? MR. FISHER: I want to call the at- tention of the Convention to the fact that they have already voted that the election of municipal judges shall be held at the time when none other than judges are to be elected. According to the motion of Mr. Shepard, we are about to provide for the election of a bailiff of the municipal court. It ob- viously cannot be held at the time of the election of the municipal judges because it will be the election then of others than judicial officers. The term of office will not be continuous with the term of office of the judges. It seems to me you are creating a certain amount of confusion in the whole municipal court situation if you elect a bailiff at one time and judges at another time, and for a different term of office. The present Municipal Court Act provides that judges have supervision over the appointees of the Chief Bailiff. They are supposed to be engaged in exer- cising that function at the present time, at any rate, to some degree, and I am utterly unable to see why you should eliminate the city clerk or other municipal officers, the elimination of whom from elections has been rec- ommended by a committee, and retain the office of Chief Bailiff of that court. The functions of the Chief Bailiff are purely to execute the mandate of the court. If his employes are under civil service, as you have already voted, you are simply putting yourselves to the difficulty and trouble of electing a chief bailiff for the very reason that Mr. Shepard has pointed out, namely, for some political reason. It seems to me that of all officers that could well be removed from the field of partisan politics in municipal elections, certain- ly it is that of the office of the bailiff of the municipal court. That is the office that stands out most conspicu- ously. We have elected our first bailiff by the people and we have inaugurated the court. He will hold office during the initial term, and will have to do with getting the office on a running basis. It seems to me that the politics of the bailiff of the municipal court ought to have no relation to the election of that man to that office. I should like to ask any gentleman present: Why should the tariff question or the currency ques- tion, or any other question which di- vides the national political parties at the present time, have anything what- ever to do with the election of a bailiff to the municipal court. MR. COLE: May I ask a question? MR. FISHER : Certainly. MR. COLE: Do you think any judge’s appointment of a bailiff will remove him from political influence? MR. FISHER: I do think that an appointment of a bailiff by the judges will remove him from political influ- ence. MR. COLE: Then I would like to give you an experience which I had within the last twelve months which will show you the opposite. MR. FISHER: Just a moment, and I will give you the reasons for my opinion. You will have eliminated en- tirely all the subordinates from his control. There is no possible consid- eration which will govern the election of that man except the selection of somebody who will fill that one par- ticular place; and as we all know, and no man knows better than the man who has just asked the question, judges in our present courts, according to his December 6 177 1906 own tale, have attempted to evade the duty of supervising the men and the work which is directly under their con- trol — namely, their clerks. He, of all men, has complained that those judges were derelict of their duty, and it was up to them to see that those things were properly conducted. If that is true of the clerk of the court, it should be still more true as to the bailiff of the court, whose sole function is to ex- ecute the orders of the court. The bailiff has nothing to do except to carry out the orders of the court. MR. DEVER: I would like to ask a question. I understand the point made by Mr. Cole is this: that the judicial qualities of these candidates are such that we are ready to believe from their conduct in the past that they will make good in the future, as they have done in the office of the justice of the peace. That they have been perform- ing those duties well for the last thir- ty years, and the assumption is that they will perform them well in the future. MR. FISHER: I don’t know if my time runs on during questions or not. THE CHAIRMAN: There will be a time allowance of two minutes for the time of interruptions. MR. FISHER: The tendency of much of the general remarks in what has been said, and in what has just been put in the form of a question, has, in each case, been in the relation to offices where there are a class of officers to be appointed; and I assume that judges and everybody else are more apt to evade those very responsibilities when those responsibilities cannot be definitely brought home to him. The election of justices of the peace is by nomination of the judges and selection by the senate and the state legislature. The judges nominate, and no one knows who nominated Tom, Dick and Harry, and the whole thing goes down to the legislature, and the senate selects out I I of the list those whom it desires to have appointed. But when you come to clerks the judges have no responsi- bility for the appointment of the clerks; they have no such responsibility as can be brought home to them, and on that very ground that they were not responsible for this election, inasmuch j as the people selected the clerk. They say it is up to the people to select the clerk, who shall be responsible for the office. It seems to me to be a funda- mental principle in order to get re- sponsible government, that you must locate responsibility just as directly as you can, and if there is just one chief bailiff to be selected by the judges, and they are responsible for that elec- tion, I would like to know how they will avoid responsibility for it, if he does not perform the duties well. They will be solely responsible for his dere- liction. He will be solely under their control, and it seems to me to be the place to put that responsibility, so that there can be no question as to where it is located. Personally, as I said before, it seems to me that all the offices that can be imagined — MR. SHEPARD: May I, with your permission, put a question? MR. FISHER: Certainly. MR. SHEPARD: I would like to ask Mr. Fisher a question. What would he do with the office under the term of the newly elected bailiff and clerks? MR. FISHER: I apprehend the term is settled by the legislature, and the action of the convention would run con- curerntly with the legislature, and it would be for the legislature to change the next election. MR. SHEPARD: Then we are talk- ing six years in advance. All this talk about the bailiff and the clerk, keep- ing them out of politics, or bringing them into politics, is six years in ad- vance. MR. FTSHER: In my opinion it would do a very great deal to take December 6 178 1906 the election of bailiff and clerk out of politics. What has a bailiff, as I have said before, to do with national party politics? He is not likely to pick his subordinates out of political reasons if they are to be put under civil ser- vice; and if the bailiff is to be selected by the judges, he will be selected for just one thing, as to whether he will be efficient, and a faithful officer; and for the very excellent reason that it is not that,— the judges and the judges alone will be responsible. Whereas, if you elect the judges, or the bailiff, if he is not failthful and does not carry out his duty satisfactorily, the judges will avoid that responsibility, and you will have inefficiency in the service. This office, above all others, as I said, certainly should be put under the con- trol of the clerk to which he is re- sponsible. You permit the mayor — it is | proposed to have authority, and the I only proposal in that regard is that the city council should select a city clerk, because his functions are simply to carry out the duties of the city clerk. You have already combined the office of city attorney with that of cor- poration counsel, by law, and there was no opposition. If you vote these two officers together you will have made the corporation counsel the superior of- ficer. Now, you propose to take the chief bailiff and elect him by the peo- ple under some principle or plan of parties and politics. For my own part I see no sufficient excuse for it. MR. COLE: For fear that my elo- quent and learned friend may have put a haze over the Convention, I would like to give a little experience that happened within the last twelve months. Now, I am very much in ear- nest over all this, for some of my heart ’s blood has gone into it. It I took place within the last twelve months in this city. There was a va- cancy in the office of the circuit court. The clerk had an engagement at Jo- liet, and there was a vacancy for that reason. The judges of the circuit court were committed to the appointment, or election of a man in the place that had been bailiff for a good many years. We headed that off with a very great deal of difficulty, and when they got through that they excused themselves with the excuse that they didn’t know anything about the man. Within for- ty-eight hours from the time the judges were headed off from that appointment, which would have stopped the whole investigation, every one of the judges sent to the clerk of the court a personal letter, or signed a letter, asking the appointment of this very man who had been headed off, and within three days after his appointment he was the sub- ject of an investigation. When he was brought to the point and had to con- fess, he said: “I don’t know what the devil you people made such a lot of fuss about; this thing has been go- ing on now for thirty years, to my knowledge. ’ ’ It had been going on for over forty years. In three weeks from the time this investigation was taken up by private individuals, the judges’ attention was called to the matter, and they refused to make investigation or to request anybody else to make an in- vestigation on this particular point. I say the judges of the circuit court have proved in their corporate capacities — not as individuals, — they are honorable as individuals, all of them. I say, as individuals they have proved them- selves to be political cowards, and I do not propose to put the appointment of anybody in the hands of anybody who | has proved himself to be a political I coward. Now, I am very much in ear- nest about this. I did not expect to say this, but my friend, with his elo- quence, is liable to bring us off the point. MR. PEND AR VIS: Mr. Chairman, I have been fully impressed with this fact, that in our previous discussions on December 6 179 1906 questions similar to this, and in the 1 discussion of this question, the only question is as to the kind of service that you expect to get from the method of your election or appointment; whether you are to get a better man by election or by appointment; whether you will get better service through an election or through an appointment. Now, I am frank to say that I cannot tell by which method you will get the best man; whether by election or by ap- pointment. It is a great guess at any } rate, whichever way we decide the question. But, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we can discern one or two things which will influence that ques- tion. I feel, Mr. Chairman, in working j out this municipal court act, we have ; worked out a strictly good scheme. The act provides that these judges shall hold meetings to consider matters that i come before them from day to day and work in harmony. It strikes me that j the less matter we inject into those [ meetings to disturb the routine of the j court work, the better we will act for the harmony of the procedure among those judges. Now, you cannot deny the fact that we have put into the hands of the judges the appointment of these officers. Even if there are only two officers, even if they have no power of the appointment of subordinates, there will be factional strife; there is liable to be factional strife over the appointment of those two officers. Some of the judges will contend for the appointment of one man, and some of them will contend for the appoint- ment of another man, and you cannot tell, and I cannot tell, how far that may disturb the harmony of the pro- cedure of the court. We want that mu- nicipal court maintained so that the judges, as they leave from day to day, will have none of these questions about them that will disturb the harmony under which they should work and con- sider questions of practice and proced- ure. Another thing, if you place in the hands cf the judges the power of ap- pointment, it must almost necessarily follow that you must place in their hands the power of the discharge of those officials. And there again you may inject into the proceedings before these judges things that will cause con- tention and which should not be brought to disturb the harmony of their proceedings. I will not say that the election of those officers is the best method by which they shall be ap- pointed, but I do believe, Mr. Chair- man, that we cannot urge any argu- ment here that will show that the ap- pointment by the judges is the superior method to that which is now prescribed by law. MB. BE YELL: May I ask a ques- tion? Will there be any serious ob- jection in the appointment of bailiffs and clerks by the chief justice of the municipal court, taking all the judges out of it. Can you see it? MB, PEND AB VIS: Mr. Chairman, I cannot anticipate how much that might influence the chief justice in the absolutely impartial discharge of his duties. He is vested with very great executive and functional powers now. 1 should hate to recommend that. I have maintained in committee, Mr. Chairman, that we should not tinker with this municipal court law at the present time. There is no necessity for a serious amendment of the municipal coi\rt act. It stands separate and apart f'om the charter. You are going to recommend amendments to it without fair trial, and it should be amended only in serious respects when you go into the legislature. Then you may point out reasons for amendments and change. But you cannot go before the legislature at this next session and say that it has been demonstrated that the method of the selection of these officers December 6 180 1906 should be changed. No reason has been apparent to us as yet why there should be a change. The men that have been selected have not been proved incom- petent or poor selections. But if we let this rest until the law has been tried, we may find that it needs amend- ment in other respects and we can go before the legislature and point out why it should be changed. MR. RAYMER: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the disposition in dealing with this matter is to get away as far as possible, so far as the courts are concerned, from political influences. I am inclined to think if the power was vested in the chief justice to appoint the bailiff and the clerk, he would simply take the recom- mendation of the party who sent him — of the party to which he may be af- filiated. I question if the power were vested in the chief justice that we would have eliminated politics as much as we think we are doing. I will be glad to support the motion of Mr. Shepard. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, the motion is before the house that No. 3 be rejected. MR. MERRIAM: Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of the proposition as ap- pears in this resolution, but my rea- sons are somewhat different from those that have been urged so far. I think no one who voted at the last election could have failed to thoroughly under- stand that something is wrong. In the district in which I voted there was a large list of officers, and I believe the desire of the Convention is to cut down the number of elective offices. All officers should be held directly re- sponsible to the people, but there seems to me to be no adequate reason why the clerk of the municipal court, or the chief bailiff of that court, should be responsible directly to the people. We can accomplish exactly the same result by providing for the appointment of such officers by the chief justice of the municipal court, in which case you center responsibility directly upon one person; or by the judges. Assuming, even for the sake of argument, that it were the even custom as between the judges and the people as to whether the election should be by the people or the judges, that is precisely the fac- tor that would cumber up the people’s ballot, and the people would be less likely, therefore, to make careful and discriminate choice in their officers. The smaller number of elective officers y.ou have, provided you have a suffi- cient number of proper control, the bet- ter results you will get. What we aim at, I take it, is to get a better govern- ment that will be as far as possible, and as quickly as possible, responsible and responsive to the popular demand. Where we add name after name to the ballot, we perplex and confuse the vot- er, and we do not get a careful and dis- criminate vote; but, on the other hand, you get a less intelligent and less dis- criminate choice than we would if we had a smaller number. That was suf- ficiently demonstrated at the last elec- tion. We are desiring now to cut down to a pretty small number, the list of elective officers, and yet we are adding to the list again by this proposition. Why should we add these two officers, the chief bailiff and the chief clerk. My proposition is that the increasing number of these officers is defeating the very object we have in mind, that is, making the government responsible to the people. Therefore I favor the proposed change. MR. VOPICKA: Mr. Chairman, I have heard the arguments pro and con in this matter, and I am of the opin- ion that I would rather risk the ballot than the judges. The judges are old gentlemen who are looking for their position in life and in the courts. The ambition of every lawyer is to be a judge, and that is as it should be. But December 6 181 1906 when a man is in that office he should not have anything to do with practical politics. In other words, if you leave it in the hands of the judges, it will simply be dictated by a lot of poli- ticians, who will make this a political office. For that reason I believe it is better to leave it in the hands of the people rather than in the hands of the judges. MR. ROSENTHAL: I would like to suggest an amendment to the present motion, which I have sent up to the Secretary. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read it. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Rosen- thal: The bailiff and chief clerk of the municipal court shall be appointed by the chief justice of the municipal court; but each officer shall be sub- ject to removal by a majority of the judges of the municipal court for in- competency, inefficiency, malfeasance or misfeasance in office. The reasons for such removal shall be specified and shall be spread at large upon the rec- ord of the court. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say one or two words about that motion. The only tenable objection it seems to me to be urged to the motion as proposed, is that you put all of your judges into politics. Now here we are fastening responsi- bility upon one particular man who ought to know who is the most com- petent person to have as clerk, and who is the most competent person to have as bailiff. Now, inorder that that man ’s power may be controlled in a certain measure, you give to the majority of the judges, power over incompetence and inefficiency and malfeasance. I have spoken with the judges of the supreme court, and I have spoken with the judges of other courts, and they all of them agree that one great defect in our present system is that the judges do not have the power to remove the clerk; and the spectacle has happened here in this state, that clerks have disgraced the court by their misconduct. Under this system, those same clerks in municipal courts could be removed by a majority of the judges. In one of our dignified courts in this state it has happened that the clerk has repeatedly come into the court intoxicated, and still the judges are powerless to do anything in the matter. MR. REYELL: Mr. Rosenthal has stated my position in this matter. It seems to me in the beginning of this debate, that the only reason urged was the bringing under the jurisdiction of the judges and it occurred to me that it was a matter that should be avoided as far as these judges are concerned. Now, you cannot eleminate politics en- tirely from the proposition. Even if you elect a man, or the people elect a man, some of the parties nominate the candidate, and politics will be in it to that extent. It seems to me if the duty of tranfer has got to be made from the judges of the County Central Committee to either of the parties, it will be a great deal better to transfer it rfom the judges to the County Central Committee. That will at least let them out of it. But my impression is that the best thing is to adopt the resolu- tion just offered by Mr. Rosenthal, and put the matter in the hands of the chief justice, let influence on him come from where it may. There will be a per- centage of influence both ways, and any way we may decide it. MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I wish to call attention to the fact that the progressive movement in connection with the courts is toward giving the judges certain power in controlling the men who execute the laws, and to hold them responsible. Now, I would call attention to the fact that our munici- pal court act is one of the most pro- gressive pieces of legislation that has December 6 182 1906 been enacted in this state, or perhaps in any other state, in the matter of courts for some time; and you will notice that that act provides that the majority of judges of the municipal court may re- move the deputy bailiffs and the deputy clerks. Now, if we are going to take away, if we are going to provide that the appointment of these deputies shall be by civil service, that leaves the bailiff — that is, the chief bailiff and the chief clerk, in a position where I can see no reason why our ballots should be encumbered by their names. I do not believe there was one man out of a hundred at the last election who went to the ballot for these men for any other reason than that they were either on the republican or the dem- ocratic ticket. I do not believe those are positions of such prominence that the average voter cares for them, in- dividually, and therefore vote for them because of their personality. I believe they should be removed from the ballot in view of the march of progress, wherein we are decreasing the number of elective offices; and I believe they should be appointed by the court, be- cause it is in the line of progress where- in the judges are to be given certain powers of supervision over matters coming under their control and direc- tion; and whereby we are to hold the judges responsible, in a measure, for those matters that come under their charge. I am therefore in favor of continuing this progress, and giving the chief justice the power to appoint these two officers. THE CHAIRMAN: Alderman Dever, do you desire the floor? MR. DEVER: No. MR. SHEPARD: Permit me,— THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, Mr. Shepard. MR. SHEPARD: Just a word, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen. It seems to me that those who have opposed my motion to reject paragraph 3, have apporoached this question from a wrong^ point of view. In these remarks I am very serious. I cannot understand how any lawyer can oppose that motion or take the position taken by Mr. Rosen- thal and by Mr. Fisher. The point made by Mr. Merriam is that we want to take a few more names off the ballot. The point made by Mr. Rosenthal and Mr. Fisher is that we will simplify the ballot by taking the clerks out of pol- itics. That is not the real heart of this question, Mr. Chairman. The question just before this Convention now is ju- diciary. The thing that we want to do and I maintain here has to do with a power and an absolutely independent judiciary. We can only have that by keeping the judges as far as possible removed from politics. MR. FISHER: Permit me to ask a question. MR. SHEPARD: Certainly, what is it? MR. FISHER : Will you be in favor of a general resolution that the chief clerk and the chief bailiff should be appointed by anybody; I mean in pref- erence to being elected? MR. SHEPARD: I am not sure. MR. FISHER: That is really the heart of the question. MR. SHEPARD: No, sir, that is not the heart of the question. The object of my motion to reject this resolution is to keep the judiciary out of politics. In the first instance we must elect them. When we have elected them we finish their political career as long as they sit upon the bench. But let us not thrust upon them in these new laws something that has never been put upon them in placing in their hands distribution of patronage so that in- dividuals will lay for them for the ap- pointment of their political friends and favorites. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon Mr. Rosenthal ’s substitute, and December 6 183 1906 the Secretary will read the substitute and call the roll upon its adoption. The Secretary read the substitute as hereinbefore printed. Yeas — Beebe, Beilfuss, Burke, Crilly, Fisher, Lathrop, Linehan, McGoorty, Merriam, Owens, Revell, Rosenthal, Taylor — 13. Nays — Baker, Bennett, Brown, Church, Cole, Dever, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, J. W., Guerin, Hill, Hoynw, Jones, Kittleman, MacMillan, McKin- ley, O ’Donnell, Pendarvis, Post, Pow- ers, Rainey, Raymer, Robins, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Snow, Sunny, Yopicka, Werno, Young, Zimmer — 31. (During roll call.) MR. POST : I wish to explain my vote. I do not believe in the popular election of such officers as court bailiffs and court clerks; neither do I believe in placing the powers of appointment to offices of that character, or any other, in fact, in the judiciary; for that reason, I am in hopes that we will have the matter presented as directly as possi- ble, and on the question of appointment or election, I vote no, as between ap- pointment and election, I vote no. MR. ROBINS: As I understand this vote, it does not preclude a vote upon the proposition of the majority of judges appointing the Chief Bailiff. THE CHAIRMAN : There is no such proposition before the house ; there is nothing to prevent it being offered after this vote is disposed of. MR. JONES: Section 3 provides that the judges shall appoint; we shall have an opportunity to vote on Section 3, shall we not? THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair got mixed up on that; that is right. That question will be raised, Mr. Robins, up- on Mr. Shepard ’s motion to reject. Upon Mr. Rosenthal’s substitute, the adoption of Mr. Rosenthal ’s substitute, yeas, 13; nays, 31; it is lost. MR. USHER: It seems to me the fundamental question we are up to here in this matter is whether we are going to have the Chief Bailiff and Chief Clerk elective or appointive officers. The question of who is to appoint the Chief Clerk or the Chief Bailiff is another question, which need not be decided now. But the question now, and to my mind, the question of controlling importance, and that which really is the issue here, is whether they shall be elected or ap- pointed, and I call for a division of the proposition, and I offer the following amendment to the resolution : THE SECRETARY: “By Mr. Fisher: The Chief Bailiff”— MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman? THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shepard? MR. SHEPARD: I rise to a point of order. He calls for a division of the question. My point of order is that the proposition is before the house and is not susceptible of two votes, or of a division. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair rules that the question is a single one and cannot be divided. The Secretary will read Mr. Fisher’s resolution. MR. FISHER: That is the reason I offered this as an amendment anticipa- ting the point. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary read the proposition and the amend- ment. The Secretary read: The Chief Bailiff and Chief Clerk of the Municipal Court shall be appointive and not elective offi- cers. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you offer this as a substitute? MR. FISHER: Yes. MR. DEVER: We didn’t get that. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary read it again. The Secretary re-read Mr. Fisher’s amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll. MR. COLE : Officers of what, I would like to ask? December 6 184 1906 MR. FISHER: Officers of the city I of Chicago, if yon want that added | to the resolution. MR. MAC MILLAN: I hope Mr. Fisher will tell us by whom these per- sons are to be appointed. This is vot- ing in the dark; no one understands how it is to be done, and I submit it is in defi- nite, and that it is an irrelevant propo- sition. It seems to me we are leaving paragraph No. 3 entirely unquestioned. If Mr. Fisher or any other gentleman has a proposition to submit with respect to by whom these men are to be ap- pointed, or whether they shall be elected, let us have that proposition. This is not clear, this is not distinct. We might vote on this and some other proposition be introduced later which would be en- tirely foreign to that suggested by Mr. Fisher. I hope this amendment will be voted down. MR. FISHER: We have heretofore in the progress of this Convention, at- tempted to facilitate definite action. We are now on a certain class of political questions apparently attempting to ob- scure the issue. It is a very clear ques- tion. If the gentlemen of this Con- vention believe in partisan politics to the extent that they wish to elect the Chief Bailiff and the Chief Clerk, why not say so? If this Convention believes in appointing them, why not say so? We have heretofore adopted the princi- ple of having a resolution with sub- heads, A. B. and C. Now, my reso- lution contemplates that we shall first settle the principal resolution as to whether the Chief Bailiff and Chief Clerk shall be appointed or elected, and then we can proceed to discuss the ques- tion by appropriate resolution, numbered B or C, or whatever we choose, under which we will decide which shall be done. For my part I care but little who appoints them, providing it is a respect- able body, and not put upon the electoral ballot and go before the people, especial- ly when you have retained party prima- ries, and are going to do exactly what Senator Jones has said, to elect a Chief Clerk or a Chief Bailiff because he is a Republican or a Democrat. You are not going into the issue of the effi- ciency or inefficiency of the Chief Clerk or the Chief Bailiff, if you nominate them and elect them before the people, and you will not have any responsibility to anybody if they get in there. Who really cares whether the Chief Bailiff or the Chief Clerk is a Republican or a Democrat in this city, who has really the interest of the Municipal Govern- ment of the city at heart? Perhaps the reason for making a distinction between the parties is that it makes one more office to put on the ballot to be dis- posed of as part of the spoils of the political organization. I yield to no man in the belief of the chief function of the political party ; but I believe there are men in office willing to confine the elections to the direct issue, and make those issues issues upon which par- ties legitimately separate, the issue in favor of a political party. I say to you that Democracy today in this nation has suffered more on account of the artificial action of certain organi- zations misquoted as Democrats, than from almost any other single thing; and I say to you from one end of this coun- try to the other, for years past the wrongdoings of the Municipal ring of the city of Philadelphia have been heard from one end of the country to the other, so distinctly rotten and bad; and neither the Tammany Hall organization in New York nor the ring in Philadel- phia has any legitimate function within the national parties; it is a spoils or- ganization pure and simple; and that such organizations grow and thrive in Municipal elections only when they per- mit the elections to control the nomina- tions bv the people of officers where the issues of national politics have no legiti- mate concern with the selection. I think December 6 185 1906 the thing that is going to do more to make party organizations live, vital and healthy than any other one thing is to make that organization depend upon the adherence to its tenets, and the men who believe in those principles, not call them artificial adherents to them; that when we raise in this city the issue of efficiency — I don ’t care whether it is the efficiency of the Chief Clerk or the effi- ciency of the Chief Bailiff of the Mu- nicipal Court, or what it is, when we put men on the ballot as nominees of the Republican or Democratic parties and ask the people to vote for those men upon issues that have nothing to do with Republicanism or Democracy, we are do- ing more to undermine national political parties than any other one thing. And if you want to look to the secret of the growth and development of independence in Municipal elections, you can put your finger on it right there; that the one thing that has done more than any other thing has been the growing conviction in the minds of the mass of the people that the elections do not represent any real issue. There is nothing in it when John Jones goes on the ballot and is nominated as a Republican, or an officer which Republicanism has nothing to do with ; and naturally, inevitably, you find a large body of Republican voters out of sympathy with either party, breaking away from party lines, discrediting the party to which they belong, by defeat- ing the party candidate, the candidate of the party. I am in favor of the simple proposi- tion of reducing the number of elective Municipal officers to its lowest legiti- mate term, and to secure that purpose I am offering this resolution. We will take it and discuss it as men of com- mon sense and sanity, and pass upon the question of who is to appoint them once we decide the question that we don ’t want them elected. MR. COLE: T don’t think my friend, Mr. Fisher, will exactly accuse me of be- ing a hide-bound, thick and thin party man. At the same time I am opposed to that amendment. I am opposed to it, while in sympathy with Mr. Fisher’s speech, with the spirit of his speech. I am opposed to the amendment because of the very reason that we want to get action. These men are elected for six years, and I want to say to you that the independent spirit in Chicago will be a good deal stronger six years from now than it is today. I want to get action, and that is why I want to di- vorce anybody that has anything to do with anything by the name of ‘ 1 Judge ’ ’ from any appointive office, from any ap- pointive authority whatever. Individual- ly I admire these Judges, but collective- ly I would not trust them to appoint a man to lead my dog to the pound. I op- pose the amendment, and I hope the amendment wdll be voted dowm, and also the original three be voted down. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll upon Mr. Fisher’s reso- lution, upon the adoption of Mr. Fish- er’s resolution. Yeas — Dever, Fisher, Lathrop, Mc- Goorty, Merriam, Ovens, Post, Rainey, Revell, Robins, Rosenthal, Taylor — 12. Nays — Baker, Beebe, Beilfuss, Ben- nett, Brown, Burke, Church, Cole, Crilly, Dixon, G. W. ; Eckhart, J. W. ; Guerin, Hill, Hoyne, Jones, Kittleman, Linehan, MacMillan, McKinley, O ’Donnell, Pen- darvis, Powers, Raymer, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Snow f , Yopicka, Werno, Young — 30. (During the roll call.) MR. JONES: I would like for infor- mation to know' what the principal ques- tion is before the house? THE CHAIRMAN: It is upon the adoption of Mr. Fisher’s motion. MR. JONES: If that is voted down, then we have an opportunity to vote upon 3? THE CHAIRMAN: Upon Mr. Shep- December 6 186 1906 ard’s motion to reject No. 3. Now, upon the vote to adopt Mr. Fisher’s substi- tute, yeas 12, nays 30. The motion to adopt is lost. The Secretary will call the roll upon Mr. Shepard’s motion to reject No. 3. MR. POST: I rise to a point of order. In the interest of public pro- cedure, Mr. Chairman, I object to tak- ing a vote in that form. This proposi- tion as printed is a motion made by a Committee; that motion is pending; it is subject to amendment, but you can- not amend a motion by stating a nega- tive. It seems to me we should get down to orderly proceedings. This Con- vention is too intelligent to have mat- ters put to it so that they only need to vote “aye” or “no.” Why not put the questions in the proper order? I hope Mr. Shepard will withdraw it and that it will come up in the regular man- ner, for a vote of yea or nay upon the motion. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman, this is in the regular order, I submit, and by the authority of Mr. Post. This is a simple proposition before the Con- vention, and the motion to reject or adopt is in order. MR. FISHER: On the point of or- der I think Mr. Post is correct. The first session of this Convention decided — it is a matter that is relatively unim- portant, because we can vote intelli- gently on either proposition — but we did adopt a general rule the first meeting of the Convention that if a resolution was read it was understood a motion was then pending to adopt the resolution without anybody rising to make it. Now, if that is correct, the mere making of a motion to reject a proposition is never in order under the rule. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, the Chair has assumed in the absence of any other motion that the motion to adopt was a pending motion. But I did not know that there could not be — up to this time — I did not know that a motion could not be made to reject. A VOICE: Question? THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair has no views on the question. If Mr. Shep- ard wants to change the form of the motion, or if any member -.of the Con- vention in making up his record desires to make a motion to reject a specific thing, in expressing his views upon it in that manner, that is another thing. The Secretary will call the roll upon the motion that the Section be not con- curred in. MR. REVELL: I wish to say that I am not in favor of appointment by all the judges of the Municipal Court; therefore, I vote “aye” on this ques- tion. Yeas — Baker, Beebe, Beilfuss, Ben- nett, Brown, Burke, Church, Cole, Dix- on, G. W. ; Eckhart, J. W. ; Guerin, Hill, Hoyne, Kittleman, Linehan, MacMillan, McKinley, O ’Donnell, Pendarvis, Pow- ers, Raymer, Revell, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Snow, Vopicka, Werno, Young —29. Nays — Crilly, Dever, Fisher, Jones, Lathrop, McGoorty, Merriam, Owen, Post, Rainey, Robins, Rosenthal, Tay- lor— 13. MR. SHEDD: I rise to a question of personal privilege, if I am in order; I wish to have the minutes of the last meeting of December 4th corrected on page 128, in the two last words, the second line at the top of the page, the first column, after the word “column” should be the words, “eliminate the” instead of “in a.” Either I made myself misunderstood or spoke indefi- nitely or indistinctly because it was my intention to eliminate the party column instead of retaining it; I ask to strike out “in a” and insert the words “elim- inating the. ’ ’ THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection, Mr. Shedd has the permission of the assembly to correct the records. December 6 187 1906 You can take that up with the Secre- tary. MR. SHEDD: And in the third line, after the word 1 1 paper ’ ’ insert ‘ 1 but retaining the party column. ’ ’ THE CHAIRMAN: You may give that to the Secretary. MR. ROSENTHAL: I have sent to the desk a resolution embodying a prop- osition which I think should be taken up, and in this connection I move its passage. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal moves the adoption of this resolution. Do you want a roll call? A VOICE : No. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor signify by saying ‘ ‘ aye. ’ ’ Those opposed, 1 ‘ no. ’ ’ It is so ordered. MR. POST : Was there a roll call or- dered ? THE CHAIRMAN: Was there what? MR. POST : I wish to know whether there was a roll call ordered, whether it has been ordered; I wish to be recorded as voting “no” on the proposition. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary call the roll. MR. O’DONNELL: What is the proposition? MR. DEVER : I would like to ask what disposition was made of our Civil Ser- vice a few moments ago, if all the Mu- nicipal officers are to be under the su- pervision of the Municipal Judges? MR. PENDARVIS. No, only the Chief Bailiff and Chief Clerk. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary read Mr. Rosenthal ’s motion. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Ro- senthal: The Bailiff and Chief Clerk of the Municipal Court shall be subject to removal by a majority of the judges of the court after a hearing, for incom- petency, inefficiency, malfeasance or misfeasance in office. The reasons for such removal shall be specified in writ- ing and shall be spread at large upon the records of the court. MR. PENDARVIS: Does this as- sume the arbitrary removal of a man by the spreading of the orders upon the records, or does it involve the right to be heard? THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal will answer that question. MR. ROSENTHAL: I thought, Mr. Chairman, that was a matter that should be recorded in the draft, but I assume that certainly would be included in the record, and I would be in favor of that. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the roll be called. (The roll call was not completed.) MR. PENDARVIS: I am in favor of the principle involved in this propo- sition, and therefore desire to go on record in favor of it, but I do not think this is the proper place to put it in the Charter; it should go or come under the change in the Municipal Court Act, which is bound to come in the course of time. I vote 1 1 aye ’ ’ for the purpose of recording myself in favor of the prin- ciple, but still adhering to the idea that we are not doing right by propos- ing this at this hearing. MR. POST : I would like to know whether the resolution has been so amended now as to provide for a trial of the officer charged. I don ’t believe in removing an elective officer without a trial. If it is amended so as to afford a trial, it is all right. THE CHAIRMAN: I don’t think an amendment can be made pending a roll call. MR. POST : I understood it had been amended. My vote depends upon that, whether it has been amended or not. THE CHAIRMAN: I don’t know how it can be amended, without the unanimous consent of the house. MR. POST : As I understand it, a man under that proposition could be re- moved without a hearing. In that case, I vote ‘ 1 no. ’ ’ December 6 188 1906 MR. MACMILLAN : Well, I voted aye on the understanding of the state- ment made by Mr. Rosenthal that this point of a man being tried was in the resolution, and I desire to change my vote to no. MR. GUERIN : I desire, Mr. Chair- man, to change my vote for the same reason. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, gentlemen, please have patience. We will be through here in just a few moments. MR. DEVER: Was not that the un- derstanding, that Mr. Rosenthal ’s reso- lution included that? If it did not, I desire to change my vote also. THE CHAIRMAN : Just a moment. The resolution speaks for itself. Will the Secretary read the resolution again? MR. BENNETT : After the resolu- tion was offered by Mr. Rosenthal the statement was made by him that the draft of this provision would cover the point of a trial, and I voted with that understanding. THE CHAIRMAN: That will be controlled by what the written words are, I presume, and not by what, was in the gentleman ’s mind. MR. JONES: I move you, Mr. Chairman, that the roll call be had again upon the motion. With the present un- destanding I would certainly vote no. MR. ROSENTHAL: I voted with the understanding that that was in the draft. THE CHAIRMAN: This assembly has the right to know what it is voting on. If this is the resolution — the Secre- tary will read it — and if it is not the resolution the gentleman should with- draw it and draw the resolution he de- sires to have voted upon. MR. ROSENTHAL: By unanimous consent I would like to modify that res- olution by saying, ‘ ‘ after a hearing. ’ ’ THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any ob- jection ? (No objection was raised.) MR. JONES: ‘‘After a hearing." Now read it. MR. HILL: Mr Chairman — THE CHAIRMAN: Just one mo- ment, Mr. Hill, until this is read as amended. The Secretary read Mr. Rosenthal ’s resolution as hereinbefore printed. MR. HILL: It seems to me clear that a hearing is not sufficient. It ought to be after a conviction. MR. GUERIN : I desire to amend that by putting in the words “convic- tion after a hearing." THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the amendment. MR. FISHER: What is the ques- tion? THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor of the amendment signify by saying aye. MR. FISHER : Just a moment, what is the motion, please? THE CHAIRMAN: To insert the words ‘ ‘ after conviction. ’ ’ MR. FISHER: Is that the amend- ment we are now voting on? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MR. FISHER: I wish to call to the attention of the members of this con- vention that that is the present criminal law, I think. I do not think there is any question of the right to remove any officer who has been convicted of mal- feasance in office. MR. O 'DONNELL : Mr. President, I move that we adjourn. VOICES: No. THE CHAIRMAN : What is the mo- tion? MR. O’DONNELL: I move nuw un- der the rules that we adjourn. THE CHAIRMAN: We will dis- pose of this matter and then we will adjourn. Now will the Secretary call — Do you desire a roll call upon this reso- lution as amended by Mr. Rosenthal? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye; opposed no. December 6 189 1906 (A viva voce vote leaving the Chair in doubt, a roll call was asked for.) ME. ROSENTHAL: Which motion is that? THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is upon Mr. Rosenthal’s resolution as amended by Mr. Rosenthal. MR. RAYMER: Thank you, sir. MR. WERNO: What is the resolu- tion? THE CHAIRMAN: Now, gentle- men, the vote is upon the resolution. As many as favor it signify by saying aye ; opposed no ; the ayes have it and it is so ordered. The motion prevailed. MR. MERRIAM : Mr. Chairman, I desire to offer a resolution to be called up at a later date. THE CHAIRMAN: Will you please be seated a moment, gentlemen? The Convention is still in order. THE SECRETARY: By. Mr. Mer- riam: Resolved that a committee of seven be appointed by the Chairman of this Convention for the purpose of as- certaining as nearly as possible the an- nual amount necessary to maintain in first class condition, with due regard to economy and efficiency, the consoli- dated government of Chicago; and for the purpose of recommending to this Convention the amount necessary to be raised for such purpose by a general taxation or otherwise; and that the va- rious departments of government con- cerned be requested to furnish this com- mittee with all information necessary for the purpose above stated. THE CHAIRMAN: What will you do with this, gentlemen? MR. O’DONNELL: I move its adoption. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman, I move that this be printed and distribu- ted so that we may have an opportunity to see it and see just what it is. It in- volves an expenditure of money and other matters, and it is an important matter, and it may be of great import- ance. MR. MERRIAM: Mr. Chairman, I move that this be printed and then called up later. THE CHAIRMAN: If there are no objections it will take that course. THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Guerin or Mr. Post — Dr. Guerin do you desire the floor? MR. GUERIN: Yes, I think it will be necessary to reconsider Mr. Rosen- thal ’s motion. It seems to me that a great many members here understood that my amendment w r as carried. I un- derstand from the Secretary it was not carried and I so understood it myself, but other members think different. Therefore I think a reconsideration of that motion is in order. Therefore I move to reconsider the motion with the idea of having it amended as I desire. THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Guerin moves that Mr. Rosenthal ’s motion be reconsidered. May I make a suggestion, doctor? Let the matter be printed as passed, and then you can move a re- consideration at the next meeting, the first thing after it has been properly amended. If there is no objection it will take that course. The Secretary has a letter in his hand which I desire him to read. The Chair would like to say to the delegates of the Convention that it is desirable that they should keep the records of the Con- vention. There is a limit to the appro- priations and we cannot have an entire- ly new grist of minutes for each meet- ing. The Secretary read : Chicago, 111., Dec. 3, ’06. The Charter Convention, Milton J. Foreman, Esq., Chairman. Dear Sir: — By direction of the Executive Com- mittee of the United Societies for Lo- cal Self-Government, the undersigned December 6 190 1906 committee beg to submit through you to the Charter Convention the enclosed proposition, amendatory of your alter- native 1, Section 1, Chapter seven, “Powers of the City Council in Gen- eral/ ’ with the request that the same be given the consideration which it merits. In thus presenting to your body squarely this issue we wish to empha- size that the time for equivocation or evasion on this subject has passed. By adopting our recommendation you but legalize a custom which has prevailed in our city for more than a generation. We do not believe it to be conducive to the moral well being of the com- munity to longer tolerate a situation which compels candidates for the office of mayor to promise before election not to enforce an obsolete Sunday closing law, which their very oath of office, if elected, enjoins them to enforce. We believe that we reflect the senti- ment of four-fifths of the voters of our city on this subject and that now is the time and your convention the place to insist upon the adoption of our proposition. We demand home rule on this question and believe the city council can be trusted to so regulate both matters as to satisfy the true re- ligious sentiments and wants of the large majority of our citizens. Your failure to embody our prop- osition in the charter legislation to be submitted by you to the general assem- bly may place upon our executive com- mittee the very unpleasant duty of appealing to our membership to vote against any and all laws that may be passed under authority of the consti- tutional amendment. Being good and law abiding citizens, we trust that this contingency may not arise. Respectfully submitted, Fritz Gloghuer, Nicholas Michels, A. Landa, Committee on Charter Legislation, United Societies for Local Self-Gov- ernment. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection this communication will be printed and taken up when the appro- priate subject is taken up. MR. SNOW: I move that this con- vention now adjourn until two o’clock P. M. — MR. POST: Suspend that one mo- ment until I ask for a correction to be made. On page 130, second column, fifth line from the bottom I am made to speak of a satisfactory amendment; it should be constitutional amendment. THE SECRETARY: Just a moment, Mr. Post. THE CHAIRMAN: Will Mr. Post give his corrections to the Secretary in writing? MR. POST: The other, Mr. Presi- dent, requires an answer from the Chair. On page 145, I am made to ask what became of the substitute and the amendment that were to be reconsid- ered. I suppose that I was referring (I certainly intended to) to “B” un- der 4 a of elections. The Chair an- swered me that Mr. Cole ’s motion had placed that upon the table. I wish to know if the Chair understood me as referring to that or to other substi- tutes? THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair can- not answer that now. MR. POST: Well, are we to under- stand, Mr. Chairman, that that clause B under 4 a of elections has been dis- posed of? THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot get you, Mr. Post. If you will give me the matter in writing I will be obliged. The Chair cannot possibly carry all these records in his mind. MR. POST: If the Chairman will permit me to make those corrections, I will write them up. December 6 191 1906 THE CHAIRMAN : If the gentlemen of the convention will give the correc- tion in writing to the Secretary, general leave will be given to correct all the records from one end to the other. MR. SNOW: I move that we ad- journ until two o ’clock P. M. Tuesday — MR. CHURCH: On the amendment offered by Mr. Burke in Section V., paragraph B, Civil Service law, I am put down as voting aye and I ask that by unanimous consent my vote be changed from aye to no, as I did not understand that the word “not” had been omitted. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection the change will be made. Now Mr. Snow. MR. SNOW: I move that we do now adjourn until two o’clock P. M. Monday next. THE CHAIRMAN: If there are no objections, and there will be none, I hope, the motion is carried. And the convention stood adjourned to meet Monday, December 10, 1906, at two o’clock P. M. Secretary. December 6 192 1906 MEMORANDA. These memoranda indicate the various matters adopted by the Convention. (See page 50 and succeeding pages of the proceedings. II. CONSOLIDATION. 1. The corporate authorities existing at present for the government of the park systems of Chicago shall be abol- ished and the management of the parks shall become a department of the city government. 2. The administration of the public school system of the city of Chicago and of the Public Library shall con- stitute departments of the city govern- ment. III. THE MAYOR. 1. The charter shall continue sub- stantially the provisions of the pres- ent laws regarding the qualifications and executive functions of the mayor. 2. The charter shall continue the provisions of the present laws regard- ing the relation of the mayor to the city council. Resolved, that it is the sense of this Convention that a clause be inserted in the charter designating a city official who shall act as mayor during the ab- sence or inability of the mayor. First Alternative to 2 b. The mayor shall have a right to a seat in the city council, but shall have no vote. He shall have the right to speak and present messages and intro- duce measures subject to the general rules of procedure of the city council. Second Alternative to 2: The charter shall continue the pres- ent provisions of the law regarding the relation of the mayor to the city coun- cil, except that he shall not preside at the meetings of the city council, but the city council shall elect its own presiding officer from its members. 3. The veto power of the mayor shall be as now prescribed by law. The following resolution on the sub- ject of The Mayor is still pending: 4. The term of office of the mayor shall be four years. Alternative to 4: The term of office of the mayor shall be the same as that of the members of the city council. IY. ELECTIONS. First alternative to 1: Elective city officers shall be nominated under a sys- tem of direct primaries, with appropri- ate provision for independent nomina- tions by petition. 2. The names of all the nominees for each office shall be printed on the ballot under the title of the office for which they are candidates. The following resolution on the sub- ject of suffrage for women is still pend- ing: 3. The charter shall contain no pro- vision for conferring the right of suf- frage on women. 4. a. The election of all city offi- cers, including those for the municipal court, shall be held in the spring. Pro- vided, however, that judges of the mu- nicipal court shall be elected at a time when no offices other than judicial are to be filled. 5. Candidates and political commit- tees shall be required to make sworn statements of receipts and expenditures of any campaign for nomination or election. Y. CIYIL SERVICE. 1. All departments of the city gov- | ernment shall be under an appropriate I civil service law. December 6 193 1906 Alternative to 1: a. The civil service law shall apply to the department of public parks. The application of the civil service law to the department of public parks shall not operate in and of itself to dis- charge the present employees. b. The civil service law shall apply to the municipal court. The Bailiff and Chief Clerk of the Municipal Court shall be subject to re- moval by a majority of the judges of the court, after a hearing, for incompe- tency, inefficiency, malfeasance or mis- feasance in office. The reasons for such removal shall be specified in writing and shall be spread at large upon the records of the court. Section 2 of Civil Service, together with resolution printed in the proceed- ings of December 6, have been referred to the Committee on Municipal Elec- tions, Appointment and Tenure of Office, with instructions to report to the Con- vention within ten days. December 6 194 1906 Resolutions offered from the floor of the Convention, but not acted upon. BY MR. REYELL: Alternative to YI. The City Council. VI. THE CITY COUNCIL. 1. The charter shall provide for re- districting the city into sixty wards. 2. Each ward shall nominate candi- dates for aldermen, who shall be voted on by the entire city. 3. The terms of aldermen shall be four years. 4. One fourth of the aldermen to retire each year. 5. No alderman shall be elected to succeed himself. 6. The compensation of aldermen shall be at the rate of $5,000 per an- num, and he shall have a secretary. 7. Aldermen shall give their entire time to serving the city as aldermen during the term for which they are elected. 8. Aldermen shall have offices in their respective wards at which they shall be found during hours to be determined by ordinance, or otherwise. BY MR. ROSENTHAL. As an amendment to Chapter IV. en- titled ELECTIONS. By adding the following proposition numbered 6 : 6. The only elective city officers (not including aldermen and municipal judges) shall be the Mayor and City Treasurer. The City Treasurer shall be ex-officio city collector. BY MR. BENNETT: XXII. 5. SECTION Nothing in this act shall be construed to modify, impair or affect or to confer upon the city coun- cil power to pass any ordinance modi- fying, impairing or conflicting with the provisions of Section 18 of an act en- ttled 1 ‘ An act to provide for the an- nexation of cities, incorporated towns and villages or parts of same to cities, incorporated towns and villages” ap- proved April 25th, 1889, or to any pro- vision of any law of Illinois relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors or creat- ing or defining criminal offenses or relat- ing to the prosecution and punishment thereof, nor shall any amendment or addition be made to the charter of the City of Chicago, except by the General Assembly, by which this section, or any part thereof shall, directly or indirectly, be abrogated, repealed or annulled. By Mr. Merriam : Resolved that a committee of seven be appointed by the Chairman of the Convention for the purpose of ascertaining as nearly as pos- sible the annual amount necessary to maintain in first class condition, with due regard to economy and efficiency, the consolidated government of Chicago; and for the purpose of recommending to this Convention the amount necessary to be raised for such purpose by a general taxation or otherwise; and that the va- rious departments of government con- cerned be requested to furnish this com- mittee with all information necessary for the purpose above stated. December 6 195 1906 SPECIAL ORDERS For Week Beginning Monday, December 10. SECTION X. — Revenue, at page 53. SECTION XVII. — Education, at page 56. PARAGRAPH 3.— Suffrage, at page 52. CORRECTIONS. MR. SHANAHAN: On page 92, first column: Line 13, insert word ‘ ‘ speak ’ ’ instead of 1 1 come. ’ 1 MR. SHANAHAN: On page 101, second column : Line 22, after the word ‘ ‘ then ’ 7 add 1 1 who shall. ’ 7 MR. SHEDD: On page 128, first column, second line, strike out “in a” and insert therefor : 1 1 eliminating the. ’ , Also, in the third line, after the word * 1 paper, ’ 7 insert 1 1 but retaining the par- ty column. ” MR. POST : On page 130, second column, fifth line from bottom^ sub- stitute the word 1 ‘ constitutional 7 7 for the word “satisfactory.” MR. SHEPARD: On page 134, first column, last paragraph, fifth line, strike out ‘ 1 that is, that all municipal officers and city officers, including the municipal court judges shall be elected in the spring” and insert therefor: “that is, that all city officers shall be elected in the spring at one and the same election, except the municipal court judges.” . . . PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER MONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1906 (Eljtrago (Eljartrr Qlmuirntimt Convened, December 12, 1900 Headquarters 171 WASHINGTON STREET TELEPHONE MAIN 4877 Milton J . Foreman Chairman ALEXANDER H. REVELL, . . VICE-CHAIRMAN M. L. McKinley Secretary '.JrNRY Barrett Chamberlin, Asst. Secy . December 10 199 1906 PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Regular Meeting, Monday, December 10, 1906 2 O’clock P. M., in the City Council Chamber OFFICIAL RECORD Published by authority of the Chicago Charter Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: The Convention will come to order. The Secretary will call the roll. Present — Foreman, Chairman, and Badenoch, Baker, Beebe, Beilfuss, Ben- nett, Brosseau, Brown, Burke, Church, Clettenberg, Cole, Crilly, Dever, Dixon, G. W., Dixon, T. J., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Erickson, Guerin, Hill Hoyne, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, Lundberg, MacMillan, McCor- mick, McKinley, Merriam, O ’Donnell, Owens, Pendarvis, Post, Powers, Ray- mer, Robins, Rosenthal, Sethness, Shan- ahan, Shedd, Shepard, Snow, Swift, Taylor, Vopicka, Werno, White, Wil- kins, Young, Zimmer — 52. Absent — Clarey, Cruice, Eidmann, Fisher, Fitzpatrick, Gansbergen, Gra- ham, Haas, Harrison, Hunter, Mc- Goorty, Oehne, Paullin, Patterson, Rainey, Rovell, Rinaker, Smulski, Sun- ny, Thompson, Walker, Wilson — 22. THE CHAIRMAN: There is a quo- rum present. Are there any correc- tions or amendments to the minutes? SENATOR JONES: I would like leave to correct the record on page 182, first column, line 39, by changing “ Chief Justices” to “Judges.” THE CHAIRMAN : Are there any further amendments or corrections? Will you read the correction, please? THE SECRETARY: Mr. Jones, on page 182, first column, line 39, change “Chief Justices” to “Judges.” THE CHAIRMAN: Any further corrections? MR. LINEHAN: Would it not be in order to make these amendments without making a formal motion each time? THE CHAIRMAN: That has been the custom, that the members present amendments or corrections in writing, and we have it read before the Con- vention, so that the Convention may know in what respect the record is be- ing changed or being affected. MR. SHEPARD: At the request of the members of the Police Depart- December 10 200 1906 ment, I offer a resolution, which I would suggest be deferred and taken up in the regular order. THE SECRETARY : By Mr. Shep- ard: Resolved, that in any act pro- viding for the formation and disburse- ment of the police pension fund the following provision be incorporated: That the members of the police de- partment to be included in the benefits of such pension fund shall be as fol- lows: The general superintendent of police, assistant general superintendent of police, inspectors, captains, lieuten- ants, sergeants, patrolmen, patrol driv- ers, superintendent of horses, superin- tendent of construction, superintend- ent bureau of identification, assistant superintendent bureau of identification, secretary of the police department, private secretary to the general super- intendent of police, police custodian stolen property, chief clerk secretary's office, clerk in secretary's office, chief clerk in detective bureau, chief opera- tor, assistant chief operator, operators, drillmaster, chief matron, matrons, feed inspector, department printer, ve- hicle inspectors, photographer, assist- ant photographer, stenographers, sup- ply drivers, finger print expert, and such other members as may hereafter be provided for by ordinance. THE CHAIRMAN: The next mat- ter before the Convention is a matter that Dr. Guerin desires to bring up, to amend the resolution of Mr. Rosenthal, printed on page 193. I would like to ask Dr. Guerin whether as printed in its present form it meets his views? MR. GUERIN: My motion is with regard to whether or not it is to be after trial and conviction. I stated that I thought the words — I have for- gotten exactly what it is — I haven't it here. Will you please read it, Mr. Sec- retary? THE SECRETARY: Yes, sir. MR. O'DONNELL: What page is that? THE SECRETARY: Page 193, un- der the memorandum, under “b," the first paragraph after “b," “The bail- iff and chief clerk of the municipal court shall be subject to removal by a majority of the judges of the court after a hearing, for incompetency and inefficiency, {malfeasance or misfeas- ance in office. The reasons for removal shall be specified in writing, and shall be spread at large upon the records of the court." MR. GUERIN: “At the hearing;" but what is they are not convicted? I want the words “at the hearing and conviction" — the words “and convic- tion" I want in. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't under- stand there is any objection to that, is there? MR. ROSENTHAL: Yes. MR. GUERIN: Well, then I will withdraw the amendment. MR. ROSENTHAL: I understand the amendment has been withdrawn. THE CHAIRMAN: Very good. The secretary will read No. 4 on the sec^ tion on civil service. THE SECRETARY: “All terms of office except those of the mayor and members of the city council and munic- ipal court judges shall be indefinite." MR. LATHROP: I desire to offer an amendment to that section which has just been read. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the amend- ment be read. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Lath- rop: Amend No. 4 of Section 5 on civil service by adding the words “and park commissioners" after the words “municipal court judges." MR. LATHROP: If I may be per- mitted to say a word in regard to that, in the report of the committee there is a recommendation that the commis- sioners be elected for definite terms, and if this exception is put in, why December 10 201 1906 that leaves it open for the Convention to decide in regard to this matter. Therefore, I move the adoption of the amendment. MR. ROSENTHAL: I rise for some information. I would like to know — this was not a motion that came from our committee, but rather a proposition that came from our committee, and I would like to know what is meant by the term (t indefinite / 1 whether that means during good behavior or during the pleasure of the mayor, or during the pleasure of somebody else. THE CHAIRMAN: I presume it is intended to do away with any definite tenure of office or any appointee of the mayor, or permit reappointment when- ever the mayor may see fit to make a change. MR. MERRIAM: This resolution contemplates tenure in office in an ap- pointive office during the pleasure of the appointing power. There are very good reasons and worthy reasons why elective officers ought to be chosen for fixed and definite terms. There ap- pears to be no very good reason why an appointive officer should be given a term for a fixed and definite period. The steps that would be followed by a corporation of a busines character would be not to appoint a man for a fixed term for him to remain in office, say possibly a man like the head of a department, but their policy would be to appoint him to hold office as long as his services in that capacity were of a satisfactory character, and no longer. For example, and even in cer- tain government and federal service, the members of the federal cabinet, the present cabinet, hold office not for a fixed term, but during the pleasure of the chief executive. There seems to be no valid reason why, for instance, the city comptroller should be appoint- ed for two years or three years, or the commissioner of public works for one year or two years or three years, or any other fixed term. He is appointed to serve as long as he serves well and faithfully, and to the satisfaction of his superior officer. Whenever he ceases to be satisfactory, and whenever his services are no longer required, he should be removed, and no sooner. But when you give a man a fixed term, and say at the expiration of that time his connection ceases automatically, you open the way to very serious temp- tations; if he is appointed for two years, and at the end of two years it is not necessary to remove the man — ■ his services may have been very satis- factory and you are not required to remove him — you merely fail to re- appoint him, so that by a very easy process you eliminate the man from the service of the city; whereas, if the question had been presented of whether or not a man holding a definite term of office should be removed, when that question came up the superior officer or the mayor might not dare to remove such a man. So that this seems to be in line not only with the general prin- ciple upon which good public adminis- tration ought to rest, namely, of ten- ure of office during good behavior of an appointed officer, but is also in line with the policy of administration pro- posed by large corporations which are not municipal or public corporations. This was not intended to apply either to the board of education or the park commissioners because it was not known at the time this resolution was written out whether or not these would be included in the consolidated govern- ment of the city of Chicago. MR. MacMILLAN: I would like to ask whether a clerical office is in- volved in the interpretation evidently put upon this by Professor Merriam, as to being the term of office? Is not this with special reference to department heads? If it is to be with reference December 10 202 1906 to other employes in the public serv- ice, it is quite a different matter. MR. MERRIAM: May I answer that? THE CHAIRMAN : Certainly. MR. MacMILLAN : Certainly. MR. MERRIAM: I would say this was intended to apply only to such officers as were not included in the civil service regulation. MR. MacMILLAN: Then you do not so state, Prof. Merriam, if that is the fact. MR. MERRIAM: Perhaps it might be better to say ‘‘all heads of de- partments. ’ ’ MR. MacMILAN : Otherwise it leaves the question quite open as to the character of those holding public office to whom this clause should be applied. Just one suggestion respecting tenure of office. As a matter of fact, whether it be a matter of statute or otherwise, the term of a cabinet officer expires with the term of the president ap- pointing such officer, so that by the termination of the term of the presi- dential office the cabinet officer natural- ly and necessarily retires. If he hold over beyond that time he knows that he holds over by the sufferance or the complacency or otherwise of the new executive. It seems to me that the phrase ought to be a definite one, and that it is too indefinite now. It seems to me that should be so phrased as to at least cover this point, that all offi- cers of the city, etc., except those, etc., shall be continued during either the efficient service or good behavior, or otherwise. But to say they shall be indefinite is quite indefinite, and it strikes me we are not going to get out of the nebulous condition unless some other phrase be inserted at the close of Section 4; and I would suggest, with- out going through the form of making an amendment, that it be so phrased that it at least should cover this, tak- ing in the amendment as made by Mr. Lathrop, adding park commissioners to the list, shall be during good be- havior. I think that at least is more definite than this phrase “shall be in- definite. MR. SHEPARD: By the term of Section 4, which appears to include members of the board of education, that is a matter that is to come up for consideration at another time, and it seems to me that the members of the board of education should be excluded from the consideration of this resolu- tion. I move you that it be amended by inserting the words “members of the board of education. “ THE CHAIRMAN: Well, that is an addition to Mr. Lathrop ’s amend- ment? MR. SHEPARD: Yes. MR. LATHROP: I second the mo- tion. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me we ought to hesitate before adopting this particular propo- sition, which was discussed only slightly in our committee; it was put in some definite form; and it seemed to us rather dangerous to have a propo- sition of that sort. If I understand this particular proposition rightly, it means that the term of every head of department is absolutely dependent upon the will or pleasure of the mayor; this is absolutely dependent upon one single man. Now, Prof. Merriam has given us the analogy of a corporation; I insist that the analogy is incorrect, because in the case of a private corpo- ration the officers are, as a rule, ap- pointed by a board of directors, and you have a majority or a minority of the board acting. Now, it is differ- ent in a municipality. The intention is to have as many as possible appointed by the mayor and to have as few as possible elected by the people. If you want to get independent action from December 10 203 1906 those officers, if you want them to do their best, they must have a certain security in their tenure of office. It won’t do, it seems to me, to let them know that at any moment they are sub- ject to removal by the head of the city. I think it would be very pernicious in the case of the fire department; I think it would be very pernicious in the case of the police department, and I think it would be very pernicious in the case of the city clerk, and I see no good reason for it in any case. The present method of allowing the mayor to remove, subject to the disapproval of the city council, seems to me most desirable and the most feasible form, and I think, therefore, that this prop- osition, together with all the amend- ments to it, should be laid on the ta- ble, and I make that motion. MR. JONES: I would like to second that motion, and for this additional reason: Under Section 8, powers of the city council with regard to officers, we shall decide whether or not the city clerk and the city treasurer shall be elective officers as at present, or ap- pointive officers, and if we pass this resolution before us as amended it vir- tually decides that question, which should wait until that later period. I think, therefore, this whole subject should be deferred until we have de- cided what officers there shall be under the charter who shall be appointive and which shall be elective. MR. SNOW : Am I correct in my understanding of Mr. Rosenthal’s mo- tion, that it is to lay on the table the proposition at last amended, or to lay this whole thing on the table? THE CHAIRMAN: That is the way I understand it. MR. SNOW: The suggestion made by Senator Jones, that there are mat- ters coming up later in the charter which might be in conflict with this provision if adopted, is a sound one. But personally I feel that the pro- vision in the shape that it stands now should not be adopted for this reason, that it is practically providing that in the case of appointive officials they shall hold office until they are removed by death or otherwise. I do not be- lieve that the burden of removing the official who has been appointed by one mayor should be placed upon another. It seems to me that the position would be much better if we should provide that the term of the appointive offi- cers should run coincident with the life of the appointing power. Just as an illustration: If the Charter Conven- tion shall adopt the provision or recom- mendation that the city clerk shall be elected by the city council, we certain- ly do not want a provision in the char- ter that this officer shall hold his term of office indefinitely; he shall not hold his office longer than the life of the council which selects him. And it seems to me that the same reasoning would apply to those officials who are appointed by the mayor. It is true that the power of removal is not taken away from the appointing power; but there may very easily arise cases in which it would be unfair to place the onus of removing a man upon the chief executive officer, when, as a mat- ter of fact, that chief executive officer might want to and might be entitled to the appointment of his cabinet— to appoint in his cabinet men who are in sympathy with the particular views which he holds, and perhaps upon which he has been elected. It seems to me if this proposition were adopted it would compel him to remove perhaps an efficient official be- fore he could appoint a man in sympa- thy with his own* views. So it seems to me very decidedly that the term of office should not extend beyond the term of office of the life of the ap- pointing power. December 10 204 1906 MR. MERRIAM: I would like to ask permission to speak again for five minutes. MR. ROSENTHAL: By unanimous consent. THE CHAIRMAN: No objection. Go ahead. MR. MERRIAM: I think Alderman Snow brings the question to issue very clearly. What Alderman Snow stated in his remarks shall not be done is precisely what is contemplated to be done by this resolution, namely, to place the onus or burden upon the mayor of removing when he comes into office an efficient administrator, who has been in under his predecessor. If the chief of the fire department or the chief of the police department has been for two years or four years an efficient and courageous head of his administration, and has continued in a vigorous and business-like man- ner to conduct his office, then I think the onus ought to be put upon the mayor who succeeds the old mayor, of removing an efficient and vigorous of- ficer like that. If the commissioner of public works under the administra- tion of Mayor A has for four years shown himself to be a capable officer, then Mayor B ought to have the onus put upon him of removing this officer. That is precisely the question at issue; that is precisely the benefit or ad- vantage that is claimed for the in- definite term of office. If the term of office is merely two years or four years, at the end of the mayor’s term, for example, then he is not obliged to re- move an officer, but merely allows him to slip away by failure to reappoint him. In this way the city may lose the services of a very capable and efficient officer, whom public sentiment might demand be retained in service, or at least public sentiment might de- mand be retained; but if his term was only two years or four years, which- ever the case might be, the mayor is not responsible for his removal, and the burden is not put upon him, which is where it should be placed. In reply to Mr. Rosenthal’s sugges- tion, I would like to suggest, so far as removal is concerned, that the mayor might not remove those officers, that the council might object to the re- moval of such officer. In short, it might result in rather strengthening the officer in his position. The tendency would be to make the officer efficient; it will protect an ef- ficient officer and will not protect an inefficient officer. It corresponds to the term of office of the members of the cabinet or the term of a cabinet officer, and not the term of the presi- dent. But the term is indefinite, no fixed term being made or provided for. MR. SWIFT: It strikes me if that proposition is a good one we might go a step further, and select or elect a man for mayor of the city of Chicago who, if he gives the city efficient serv- ice, should be elected for an indefi- nite term also. Why? If the propo- sition holds good for the commissioner of public works or the city treasurer, or the city collector, or the head of any department, why should not it hold good for the chief executive of the city of Chicago ? Why should it be limited to two years? Why should he, the chief executive, be limited to two years and sent back to the peo- ple? As I understand it, if the people desire a change in office, no matter how efficient a man may have been in the conduct of the office, under our laws at the end of two years some man, some coterie of men, be they large or be they small, may say: “He has been an efficient official, he has been an excellent mayor, he has done those things which have met with the ap- proval of the people, but we don ’t want him; we want a change.” If that position is good, make your December 10 205 1906 mayor an office that is indefinite and keep him there so long as he does prove efficient. On the other hand, I be- lieve in a one-man power. I am not in sympathy, and my reason is born from long experience — I am not in sympathy with those who desire to curb the power of the chief executive of the city of Chicago. I am not in sympathy with those who desire to separate the legislative so far from the executive. I ’ believe the legislative and the ex- ecutive departments should work in harmony, should be brought nearer to- egther. I believe that the mayor should be given great power and held responsible for that power. The power to do the right thing involves the power to do the wrong thing. A man who has not the power to do the right thing has not the power to do the wrong thing. Put the responsibility upon your chief executive; bring him in harmonious relations with your ad- ministrative officers. Now, I have had a good deal of ex- perience; I have been a long-time resi- dent of the city of Chicago; have been an alderman, commissioner of public works, and the mayor, and I have failed yet to find a time when the council and the mayor could not get to- gether on a fair proposition. I don’t like this bugaboo business, every once in a while someone saying: “Here comes the bogey man, the mayor; look out, boys; everyone take to cover.” There is nothing in it, there is noth- ing to it. We ought to elect a man who has executive ability. Now, where are you going to find him? I have heard them speak time and time again about the necessity of electing and selecting a great execu- tive man to the office of mayor. Who is going to find him, who is going to decide on his executive ability? Why limit it to great? Why not say “the greatest man,” the man of the “greatest” executive ability? Who is to find that man? Are we to find him in our comercial walks of life, or are we to find him among the presidents of our great corporations? Shall it be the president of the North-Western Railroad, Mr. Hughitt, or the president of the Illinois Central, Mr. Harrahan? You cannot get either of those men to accept the position; you could not get them. Gentlemen, we have witnessed here, meeting after meeting, and have heard from the diffrent aldermen, and I say there has as yet been not one silly motion, nor one silly speech from a single alderman in this Charter Con- vention. There is not one of them but what every time he said anything it has been practical. I venture to say that from the membership of this Char- ter Convention you could find a dozen men who could fill the position or office of mayor of the great city of Chicago with credit. I believe that the man, whoever he may be, should have great powers. He should have great powers, I repeat, for with that power comes the sense of responsibility, if the man is level- headed. He is the man to suffer most if there is a failure in the conduct of his administration. He should be al- lowed to select his cabinet, not to be trammeled by legislation. What is to prevent a mayor, when he appoints a commissioner of public works, or when he appoints a comptroller, or when he appoints his chief law adviser, to sim- ply say to that gentleman: “Hand me your resignation, to be accepted at my will”? What becomes of him? Why should not he have that power? Point to me a single instance when the mayor of Chicago has wrongfully exercised his power? Give him power and hold him strictly responsible for it. As I have said before, he is only one man in the council. There are seventy members of the council, and when we speak of his administration we do not December 10 206 1906 speak of his executive hands alone. He is spoken of as the chief representa- tive of the officials of Chicago. They must counsel with the mayor, and I believe that the mayor and the coun- cil should be brought together in har- monious relation; the mayor should not be set to one side and put upon a ped- estal, but upon him should be put the responsibility of carrying out the pow- ers conferred upon him to the best of his ability. Men sometimes make mistakes, and he may sometimes make mistakes. Of course, we are all human. But if he does and the mistakes are pointed out to him there will be no difficulty in rec- tifying them. I made mistakes myself when mayor, but they were mistakes of the head, not of the heart. I say that the legislative and executive de- partments should be brought into a harmonious whole. The mayor should consult the members of the council. There are members in it who are men of affairs, practical men, and from the very fact that every Monday night, once a week, and sometimes oftener they are gathered together to consult with each other and make comparisons of the many things brought before them, why they become naturally cog- nizant of the wants of the city. Now who should the mayor go to? He goes to the members of the city council, for matters that are before the city council; he sends for the aldermen and consults with them and learns what has been their experience, and he gathers a great deal of information in that way, a great deal of good infor- mation, and he puts that information to the best use that he can think of at the time. I know that during my in- cumbency of the mayorality office I often consulted the aldermen of the city of Chicago. I never had occasion to find fault with the advice they gave to me when I told them that I wanted the best that they had, when I said “I want the best that you can give, I want the best, I want that which is for the best interests of the city. What do you think of that?” Point to me a single instance where, the members of the city council have had to rise in their might as against the chief executive. If he is a man of administrative and executive abili- ty he knows who to go to, he knows, perchance, better than anybody else what is to the best interests of the city, after consultation with men in whom he has confidence, the best por- tion of the city government. Therefore, I am not in sympathy with this motion, nor am I in sympa- thy with . this seeming determination on the part of some of the members of this Convention to look upon the mayor as a bogey man. That is not right. It is a high office, an office worthy of the ambition of any man, no matter what his parts may be, and you should not rob that office of the responsibility that should attach to it and make it that which it is. If the mayor of the city of Chicago fails to do his duty there is a higher power that takes care of him, and under the laws it is relegated to the people at the end of every two years to say whether he has been a worthy occupant of the office or not. I am not in sympa- thy with this motion of terms of office except those of the mayor and mem- bers of the city council and municipal court judges — that they should be in- definite in time. If you have a good commissioner of public works, if he is par excellence, if he is a man of great executive ability — and there is the office where you should have a man of exec- utive ability, perhaps more so than the man who occupies the mayoralty chair, for upon the commissioner of public works devolves the conduct of this great city, and to his judgment many things are submitted, there comes many ques- tions. He should be a man of great execu- December 10 207 1906 tive ability. Your comptroller should be a man of financial affairs, a man who understands the finances, a man of in- tegrity, a man of parts. It should be left to the chief executive of the city. What does that mean? It should be left to the man who is chosen by your superiors, the people. I have heard a great deal said about the people. Who are the people? They are the men who come to your aider- men, and what do they say to your aldermen? “I want you to do so and so, ” and there comes the point of their self-interest. And there is the aider- man, there is a delegation coming to see him about some proposition in the council, men of affairs who present a certain matter to him in a certain way, and he no more than dismisses them than there comes another delegation which represents certain interests that are asking for something which is ex- actly opposite. So you see that in every case self-interest predominates and until you can do away with that inherent self-interest, that inherent selfishness, you cannot have the proper government. THE CHAIRMAN: Your time is up, Mr. Swift. MR. ROSENTHAL: I would like to change my motion to lay this on the table, with the consent of my second, who had already intimated to me he will consent, I move to defer action to this proposi- tion, inasmuch as we cannot intelligently act on it until we find out who the heads of the department are. THE CHAIRMAN: This motion of Mr. Rosenthal ’s must be considered first, this question to lay on the table. We will take a vote upon it. THE CHAIRMAN : The motion to defer is lost. MEMBERS: Call the roll. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll. On the motion to de- fer the Secretary will call the roll. Yeas— Beilfuss, Brosseau Dever, Eck- hart, B. A.; Jones, Lathrop, McCormick, Merriam, Pendarvis, Robins, Rosenthal, Sethness, Taylor, White — 14. Nays — Beebe, Bennett, Brown, Burke, Church, Chattenberg, Cole, Crilly, Dixon, G. W.; Dixon, T. J.j Eckhart, J. W.; Erickson, Guerin, Hill, Hoyne, Kittleman, Linehan, MacMillan, McKinley, O ’Don- nell, Owens, Post, Powers, Raymer, Shan- ahan, Shedd, Shepard, Snow, Swift, Vo- picka, Werno, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 34. MR. ROBINS: I wish to change my vote from no to aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Robins changes his vote from no to aye. Upon the motion to defer action, the ayes are 14; and the nays 34. The motion is lost. MR. RAYMER: I move that No. 4 be not concurred in. THE CHAIRMAN : You have heard the motion, gentlemen. MR. HOYNE : I desire to offer a resolution, but that practically covers my substitute which I was willing to in- troduce. It practically means the same thing, and it satisfies me; I second the motion. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion that No. 4 of the Civil Ser- vice section be not concurred it. Upon that the Secretary will call the roll. I presume that means the two amendments, also. MR. RAYMER: I intended to cover all amendments that had been submitted and acted upon. Yeas — Beebe, Beilfuss, Bennett, Bros- seau, Brown, Burke, Church, Clettenberg, Cole, Crilly, Dixon, G. W. ; Dixon, T. J.; Eckhart, B. A.; Eckhart, J. W.; Erick- son, Guerin, Hill, Hoyne, Jones, Kittle- man, Linehan, Lundberg, MacMillan, McKinley, O ’Connell, Owens, Pendarvis, Powers, Raymer, Rosenthal, Sethness, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Snow, Swift, Vopicka, Werno, White, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 42. December 10 208 1906 Nays — Dever, Lathrop, Merriam, Post, Robins, Taylor, — 6. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the motion to not concur on No. 4 of Civil Service section, the yeas have 42 and the nays 6. The motion to not concur is carried. MR. SWIFT : By request, I introduce a petition which I ask to be read, and which I hand up to the table. MR. M’CORMICK: I wish to record my vote as no. THE CHAIRMAN: The vote has been announced, Mr. McCormick, and no change in the record can be made now. The Secretary will read the petition. THE SECRETARY, By Mr. Swift. Chicago, 111., Dec. 7, 1906. To the Hon. Geo. B. Swift, Member of the Charter Convention 188 E. Madison St., City. Dear Sir: — We, the undersigned, were instructed by the Chicago Methodist Episcopal Preachers ’ meeting to petition your honorable body to include the appended provision in the proposed Charter: The Charter shall provide as follows: Nothing in this act shall be construed to modify, impair or affect or to confer upon the city council power to pass any ordinance conflicting with the provisions of Section 18 of an Act entitled, “An Act to provide for the annexation of cities, incorporated towns and villages or parts of the same to cities, incorporated towns and villages, ’ ’ approved April 25, 1889, or of any provision of any law in Illinois relating to the sale of in- toxicating liquors or creating or de- fining criminal offences or relating to the prosecution and punishment thereof, nor shall any amendment or addition be made to the Charter of the city of Chi- cago, except by the General Assembly, by which this section or any part thereof shall, directly or indirectly, be abrogated, repealed or annuled. This action is taken because the mem- bers o fthe Methodist Episcopal Church, whom we represent, desire the Charter to be proposed in such a form that they can give it their heartiest support, with the assurance that the moral interests of Chicago are safeguarded thereby. Very respectfully yours. MORTON CULVER HARTWELL, Chairman. 3314 South Park Ave. A. LINCOLN SHUTE, JOHN THOMPSON, 5322 Washington Av., Chicago, THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair ijs under the impression that theis is the same matter that was presented by Al- derman Bennett as a previous meeting. Is that correct? MR. BENNETT: It is the same sub- ject. THE CHAIRMAN: Then there is no need that it should be printed in the record, because the matter is already men- tioned in the record. MR. ROSENTHAL: My attention has just been called to the fact that an error appears on page 192, under the title of Elective Officers, the second proposi- tion in the second column, in No. 4. It omits the words ‘ 1 In alphabetical order , 1 ’ and the designation of the party to which they belong. That was the resolution — THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary advises me that he discovered this typo- graphical error, and it will be corrected. The Secretary will read No. 6, city coun- cil. The Secretary read No. VI as it ap- pears in the proceedings at page 52. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Revell pre- sented an alternative proposition. He is in New York, and I believe he sent the Secretary a statement of his views on the subject. If there are no objec- tions, the Secretary will read it, if he has it with him. Have you Mr. Revell ’s letter? THE SECRETARY: No, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: Did you receive a letter from him? THE SECRETARY: No, sir. December 10 209 1906 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Revell says in his note to me that he will send me his views on the subject, but I haven’t yet received them. MR, RAYMER: I move you the adop- tion of No. 1. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion that No. 1, pro- viding for the redistribution of the city into 70 wards, one alderman to be elected from each ward, is before the house for discussion. MR. SNOW : Mr. Chairman, I desire to offer as a substitute, the following: THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Snow: Amend first proposition so that it shall read: 1. The charter shall provide for redistricting the city into seventy wards of compact and contiguous territory, and with an equitable distribution of area and population, one alderman to be elect- ed from each ward. MR. SNOW: Practically the only dif- ference, Mr. Chairman, is that they are trying to make it a charter provision that the wards shall be in contiguous ter- ritories, and that there shall be taken into consideration both the question of area and of population in determining the size of the ward. MR. RAYMER: I will accept the amendment, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN : Is there any more discussion on this matter? MR. DEVER: I would like to hear some discussion on this measure by the mover of the motion or by somebody else interested in it. It is a very great change in the present law. Personally I do not see any great reason for it. I am not opposed to it, but I cannot see any good reason for the change. If I was told there might me some good rea- son for making this change — I have been a member for the last five years, and have been associated with other aider- men representing the same ward that I do, of course, and I find that the dual system, if I may so call it, works very satisfactorily in our ward. We have not elected two of the same party in our ward during my incumbency of the office. It seems to me that two men might well represent these wards. I do not see why we should give one man the whole responsibility of representing a particular locality. If he is a member of one party, narrow in its views or con- duct, he may feel it would be in his in- terest to represent the interests of that particular party, or a particular faction of that particular party. Whereas, as things are, there are in many of the wards of the city, as our ward is, wards represented by one democrat and one republican, and it seems to me the wards and the people get better service from the alderman than they would under this new system. Furthermore, it seems to me if you place the political control of a ward, as well as the physi- cal duties on an officer — the legislative and executive duties of that territory in the hands of one man — you will get po- litical power in the ward which will make it difficult to get rid of whenever you desire to do so. I have not given this matter much thought, but I think the present distribution, as far as I know it, works very well, and this is a radical change of the present system. Unless some good reason for making a change appears, I believe I would vote against it. MR. BENNETT : One very good rea- son occurs to me why this change should be made, and that is this: By dividing the city into 70 wards, you bring the alderman closer in contact with the con- stituency which elects him. You make it more of a neighborhood affair. The al- derman will be better known to the peo- ple who elect him than under the pres- ent system. My judgment is that you will insure getting a good alderman under this plan. Another reason is this: You reduce the amount of territory which the alderman is required to look after. You will, in that way, relieve him to a large extent— about half — of the duties of look- ing after the physical needs of the ward. December 10 210 1906 Under the present practice it is neces- sary to keep in touch with the affairs of the whole ward. Under the new sys- tem, he would have just one-half of that territory to look after, and for those two reasons alone I think we are war- ranted in making the change. MR. RAYMER: In addition to the rea- sons that Alderman Bennett has given, I might suggest one or two more. In the first place, a reference to the tfoard of local improvements, I think, will show that in the matter of improvements, it frequently happens that two aldermen in the ward are divided on the question. This is brought about by the property owners not being here to agree that the improvement should be made. Conse- quently one faction goes to one of the aldermen, and the other faction goes to the other, and we find them arrayed one against the other, representing the in- terests of that particular ward. An- other reason is that responsibility in representing the people should not be di- vided. I think that is one of the most important reasons that can be given. It is a well known fact that all of the aldermen are not equally industrious. It sometimes happens that the greatest part of the burden of looking after the physi- cal needs of the wards is placed upon the shouldres of one of the representatives. The result is that it is not a physical possibility for one man to give the terri- tory over which he is supposed to have supervision, the attention that it requires. Take the question of improvements, street paving and construction of side- walks, the building of sewers, and any improvements of a public character, they should receive the same attention from the aldermen of the ward. If the terri- tory is decreased in size, it would be possible for one alderman to assume the responsibility of supervision. My judg- ment is — and it is based on eight years experience as an alderman — that if the territory were to be lessened in size, the people would get much better results from their representative, and he can keep in closer touch with the people whom he represents. Responsibility would not be divided. Take it altogether, gentle- men, I am satisfied that the city of Chi- cago would get the best results ever had from its city council. MR, M’CORMICK: I beg to differ with all the speakers who have spoken. It appears to me that 35 wards are enough, but I think one alderman from each of the 35 wards also would be enough. It is said that one alderman from a ward is not enough, because he would not be able to give individual at- tention to many of the physical needs o£ the ward. Nor should he be called upon to give his attention to the sewer building and street paving of his ward. The city is organized with an executive and legislative branch. The duty of the executive is to see that the pub- lic improvements are properly carried opt, and if the executive department is brought up to the efficiency we expect from it, we should not be called upon to attend to somebody else’s business. As far as legislature is concerned, 35 aider- men are sufficient. During the time that I have had the honor to be a member of the committee that chose the committees for the city council, we considered that three committees were the most important committees in the city council, and I presume that the last committee in the presume that the last committee felt the> same way about it that we did. We felt that the finance, the local transpor- tation, and the judiciary, were the most important committees of the city council. Looking at the committee cards for these committees, I find that the three com- mittees are filled by 27 aldermen — or per- haps 28, if I have not added them cor- rectly. If we have 35 aldermen we would still have a surplus over these important commitees. I see that 27 aldermen are on these three committees, and most al- dermen are on two — on or more — and maybe on three. I have not had time to December 10 211 1906 look through the other committees that fell into prominence this year, but by glancing through them I find the same representative names that I find on the first three committees. The fact is well recognized, and it is a fact to be accepted that the alderman whose services in this council have been efficient, and the aider- men who have the time to give to their work, will be chosen for the important committees, whether we have 35 aldermen or 350. Another trouble with us is that when a board or a committee, after weeks and weeks of hard work, in which they agree and disagree, and agree and disagree again, finally bring in what, in their judgment and their experience is good, they have to wrest over 40 or 50 other persons to their way of thinking, and this means delay in legislation, which is a de- lay in good decisions. For this few reasons, I believe that 35 wards should be preserved and that only one alderman should be elected from each ward. MR. TAYLOR : The great need of the city council of Chicago is for men of higher equipment and of stronger calibre in its ctiy council. This is a council- governed city. It seems to me that the difficulty is increasing in getting men of large capacity to serve as aldermen. I believe that that difficulty will be in- creased by increasing the number of wards, and I therefore concur in the judg- ment of him who preceded me, that the wards should remain at the same number, even though we have two men in a ward. I really believe that we would have a better selection of men by having fewer wards than a larger number of wards, as proposed in this first section. I do not see why we have a divergence from the ordinary procedure, and why we could not take up these alternatives in the reverse order, as we have in other instances. The motion, I know, was made that we take up No. 1, but it seems to me to foreclose the decision on certain specific points that were brought out in the first and second alternatives. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Taylor a question? I would like to know whether you con- sider seventy too large for a city having a population of over two millions of peo- ple? I just ask that for information. MR. TAYLOR : I certainly believe that the business of the population of the city of Chicago would be better trans- acted and more efficiently done by thirty- five aldermen than by seventy, and I think we would have just as fair repre- sentation, too. MR. WERNO: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Alderman Werno. MR. WERNO: Mr. Chairman, from all that has been said, I am entirely un- able to see any good reason for this change. There may be something said in favor of the seventy wards and one alderman, but I do not think much can be said in favor of thirty-five wards and one alderman. I believe that unless bet- ter reasons can be given than have so far been given, we should leave the matter as it is. If the city were to be divided into seventy wards and we then had one aider- man from each ward, I think possibly we could get better service than with thirty- five wards and one alderman. I am quite sure of that, because as it has been said here, one of the reasons given here in favor of seventy wards, is that it would bring the aldermen in closer touch with the people whom they represent and they would know more of them, know more of their needs and wants. Now, if that is what the alderman is to do in the city council, if he is to represent his people and look after the physical needs of his ward, then it ought to be made smaller, and if you are going to leave the wards as they are and have only the one aider- man, then you make conditions much worse than they are now. Those of us who have run for office for the last few years as aldermen, know December 10 212 1906 that one of the questions we are usually- asked is: “Are you willing to give the necessary time to look after the physi- cal needs of your ward?” That is one of the things that is much asked of can- didates. Now, it seems as if the question arises when you have two aldermen in the ward, as there are to-day, this same question will come up as to whether or not these men will give the necessary time to look after the physical needs and conditions of their ward. Now, if there is a question as to that when we have two aldermen in a ward, what would it be if you had one aider- man and thirty-five wards? It would be practically impossible for one - man to look after a ward such as the 25 or the 27th, some of the South Side wards, it would be impossible for him to do that if you leave them as they are now. So it seems to me as far as one aider- man to the ward and thirty-five wards is concerned, if you want to have good service, it is something that is out of the question. One man could not look after everything that must and should be look- ed after, even if he gave all his time to it; he could not get around. But if you have one alderman in a ward ; if you think one alderman in a ward is better than two, then we ought to have the seventy wards so as to make them smaller in size. That would make the size of the coun- cil in number just the same as it is to- day, and as far as I am personally con- cerned, from the experience I have had in the council, I have no particular views on that as to whether there ought to be one alderman if you adopt that number of wards. As has been said by Alderman Ray- mer, it sometimes happens that the al- dermen divide; one alderman is in favor of one faction in his ward, or certain property owners, and another alderman is in favor of the other. Now, whether it is a bad or a good condition to have, depends upon the circumstances. Some- times it might be well that there are two, where they do not agree, when one might be favoring a certain element or faction that is asking for something that is not right; then perhaps it is a good thing to have another man in the ward opposed to that faction or that element in what they are asking for. So I do not believe there is very much in the argument. The main point about this is to get the best possible service for the people of Chicago after you have elected capable and honest men to repre- sent the people, men who are willing to give the time necessary, and I believe that with one man from a ward, and thirty-five wards, that we would get much poorer service for the people of Chi- cago than we are getting to-day with two aldermen from each ward. So I should say, that if you have one aider- man to each ward, then you should have seventy wards. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that there is a rather strong sentiment in this Convention in favor of the single responsibility that would be involved in a single alderman from a ward. Attention has been called by some speakers who say they believe in one al- derman, but they believe that thirty-five is enough. Let me call your attention to the fact that we are not making a charter for to- day but for a number of years, and that the population of Chicago is rapidly in- creasing. Also, the undeveloped terri- tory which is already in Chicago is be- ing developed and that will require a greater amount of attention to the local conditions of the wards, and it seems to me when you take into consideration the fact that the alderman ’s duty is twofold; first, that he shall look after local conditions of his ward and meet his people; and second, that he shall also legislate, and that we need certain changes, and that if we do not need them now w r e will very soon and we do not December 10 213 1906 want to find Chicago in short skirts as we have found her in the past, I am, therefore, in favor of the proposition of a single alderman for the ward, and starting with seventy wards. ME. POWEBS: Mr. Chairman, I co- incide almost entirely with the remarks made by Alderman Werno. I believe it would be a serious mistake to leave the wards as they are to-day and have only ne alderman for each ward. It would be absolutely a physical impossibility for any man to attend to the duties of the office and the needs of his constitu- ents, because with the present popula- tion that would be about 50,000 to the ward. From my experience in the city coun- cil, and as alderman, I think to-day that that would be absolutely impossible. If there is going to be a change and only have one alderman for a ward, then 1 say we should have seventy wards. Personally I am in favor of not chang- ing from the representation as it is to- day, but if the sentiment is one alderman from each ward, then I say seventy wards is not too many. MB. CHUECH: I desire to offer the following amendment. THE CHAIEMAN : The Secretary will read it. THE SECEETAEY : By Mr. Church: The city may be redistricted by the city council every ten years, after the federal census has been taken, but no more than seventy wards shall be made. MB. CHUECH: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIEMAN: Mr. Church. ME. CHUECH: Mr. Chairman, in support of that amendment, it simply fixes the number of wards so that they cannot be increased by the council, and allows the council to redistrict the city as the population is increased every ten years after the census is taken. If it is deemed advisable that that time should be shortened, I w r ould be willing to have an amendment changing it, although I think ten years would be all right. ME. EOSENTHAL: I would like to have that read again, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIEMAN: Will the Secre- tary read that again, please. The Secretary again read Mr. Church ’s amendment. ME. SNOW : Mr. Chairman, I have a substitute before the house at the pres- ent time, and I would be willing to ac- cept Mr. Church’s amendment if he will draft it so it will fit in. In other words, I still believe that the wards should be contiguous territory, and that the area as well as the population should be taken into account. Mr. Church simply provides for the redistricting of the city every ten years. THE CHAIEMAN: It occurs to the Chair that it would simply qualify it without being a substitute for it. ME. CHUECH : Yes. THE CHAIEMAN: And that ap- plies particularly to the redistricting. ME. CHUECH: That is the idea. THE CHAIEMAN: May the Chair call the convention ’s attention to a matter that in his judgment ought to be discussed at the same time? So far as the length of time, there is nothing in the outline as presented to this con- vention relating to the length of time of the aldermen, or how th>ey shall be elected. ME. EOSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman— THE CHAIEMAN: Mr. Eosenthal. ME. EOSENTHAL: We have made a recommendation and that recommenda- tion is embodied in the following prop- osition which I send to the Chair, prop- osition. 3 of No. 6, which I ask to have read at this time. MB, EAYMEE: Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that we are dealing with an entirely different proposition. THE CHAIEMAN: Thas is very true, but I did not find it anywhere here and . I did not want to see it lost sight of. We passed a section here relating to the term of the mayor, that it shall be the same, as the members of the city December 10 214 1906 council. Now, I may not be able to find it, but when we come back to that, that should be determined, what the term of the members of the city council shall be, so we can intelligently determine that. MR. RAYMER: I think, Mr. Chair- man, that they ought to decide on the other proposition first. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, very good. The Chair simply wanted to call the at- tention of the members of it first. MR. ROSENTHAL: I would like to have that read, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Will the Secre- tary read Mr. Rosenthal’s proposition? THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Rosen- thal : The term of office of aldermen shall be four years. The aldermen shall be periodically elected at an election held two years after the mayoralty election. MR. MacMILLAN: What does that mean, Mr. Chairman? THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal has the floor. Mr. Rosenthal, a question was asked you relating to your resolu- tion. Will you repeat your question, Mr. MacMillan? MR. MacMILLAN: What does that word “periodically” mean? there, give us the construction of that. THE CHAIRMAN: I am glad you said “there.” Mr. Rosenthal will you explain your resolution, please? MR. ROSENTHAL: “Periodically,” as I understand it, means every period of four years. That is, if the term is four years, why the period is four years, and periodically would mean every four years. That is, it was the idea of our committee, and I might say here that that proposition was passed in our committee by a vote of nine to two, that the elec- tion of aldermen should occur every four years, the term should be four years and the election should be held between the mayoralty elections. MR. YOUNG: I desire to suggest that there is a motion before the house and it does not seem to me that this particular matter is directly material to the motion before the house. I believe we can get along better by settling one question at a time. Let us settle the question of how many aldermen we will have and then we can settle the question of the term of office and the salary and other questions involved. THE CHAIRMAN: In view of the fact that possibly the question of the terms of the aldermen might have some- thing to do with the number of aider- men, the Chair suggested its omission, and Mr. Rosenthal’s matter will stand over until this matter is disposed of. MR. McCORMICK : Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of the second alterna- tive to one, to take the place of all the others. THE CHAIRMAN : Just a moment, it will be read. The Secretary read the second alterna- tive to No. 1, as it appears in the pro- ceeding at page 52. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair de- sires to state that this is the last substi- tute. MR. YOPICKA: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that No. 1 should be passed by this Convention. I possibly cannot state any new reasons that were not stated before, but I think that if you have one alderman from the ward, that he can serve the ward better than two aldermen. It has been my experience, and was when I was a member of the Board of Local Improvements, that an alderman would come to me and ask me not to let such and such a movement go through and the next one would come to me and say, “Vote in favor of that; we want it,” and so I do not think two aldermen can serve a ward as well as one. My opinion is this: That if you have a small ward and one alderman, that you can get better service in the interests of the city, and for that reason I heartily endorse the adoption of No. 1. MR, B. A. ECKHART: Mr. Chair- man, I am in favor of the motion made December 10 215 1906 by Mr. McCormick substituting the second alternative to 1 : 11 The number of wards shall remain as at present, but only one alderman shall be selected from each ward,” and I believe that the experi- ence of the men present here is that a large body does not tend to expedite the business of that body but rather retards it. I think as an illustration of that theory I can point to the State Legisla- ture of this State. We all know that the Senate of the State transacts its business much more expeditiously than the House, and I believe that is true of all legislative bodies. I think you get better results by smaller bodies than you can get by the larger ones. I think there is a great deal of force in what has been said here this after- noon in reference to the undesirability of having two aldermen in one ward. I believe one alderman in a ward would subserve public interest better than two. I believe in undivided responsibil- ity, and I am, therefore, heartily in favor of the last alternative named and read; but if that cannot be adopted, I am certainly in favor of limiting the election to one alderman to each ward, because I believe, as I have stated, that you will get much better results. f MR. SHANAHAN : Mr. Chairman, this matter was referred to the Conven- tion from the committee on municipal legislation, and that committee spent a great deal of time going over this whole y subject matter. It was referred by that \ committee to a sub-committee, of which \ Alderman Raymer was chairman. He sent out notices asking for a referendum 1 vote on the subject to the members of / the City Council and to persons who had / been members of the City Council for \the past fifteen years. That vote showed \hat over 90 per cent, were in favor of ohe alderman to a ward, and over 75 percent., if I remember correctly, were in fstvor of 50 or 60 wards. The original proposition before the sub-committee was in favor of dividing the city into 50 or 60 wards, with one alderman to a ward. Judge Carter, who was then chairman of this Convention and was attending those meetings, sug- gested that it would not be a wise thing to reduce the present representation in the City Council, and called attention to the fact that in a very few years we would have a population of two and a half million in this city, and that 70 was small enough representation in the City Council for such a city. Every official, every mayor, every head of a department and the members of the Board of Local Improvements stated that it has been their experience that where there were two aldermen to a ward, invariably when a matter came up for improvement one alderman took one side and one alderman took another. I think that we ought to now decide as to how many wards we want and then whether we want one representative or two representatives from a ward. I would say further that the only contention in your committee was as to whether we should have aldermen a large, or not. The committee was unani- mous almost in its opinion of having seventy wards and one alderman to a ward. MR. ZIMMER: Mr. Chairman, I am not in favor of the alternative having the number of wards remain as at pre- sent and one alderman to a ward. I have had six or seven years’ experience in the City Council, in representing a very large ward, very large in territory, and requiring a great deal of work, that is, work in the ward in the line of im- provements. It has been my experience from the work I have done and from meeting the people in my ward, that if you allow the wards to remain as they are now that you cannot get good ser- vice from the members of the City Coun- cil. The work will be entirely too great for that. You put all of the work on thirty-five members, and the people in those thirty- December 10 216 1906 five wards will suffer; they will not get as good service as they are getting now. If there are any changes to be made in the number of wards, or the number of aldermen, the proposition of dividing the city into seventy wards and one alderman to each ward should carry. In that way each alderman would have less territory to look after, and he could do his work as it should be done, and give the people who sent him to the Council the kind of service they should have ; and if the people are to be considered in this matter at all, the proposition of seventy wards and one alderman to the ward should carry. ME. TAYLOK: Mr. Chairman, 1 wish to present an amendment to the second alternative which I will send to the secretary. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will have to rule that temporarily that is out of order. There is an amendment here and an amendment to an amendment. MB, TAYLOE: Pardon me, I did not know that. ME. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, may I rise to a point of order. I think that this Convention established by vote at the outset a certain order of procedure which has not, to my knowledge, been changed, and under which we should be obliged unless we suspend that vote, to begin with the second alternative. I question whether the matter pertaining to the first article is in order at all in view of the former vote of the Conven- tion, and I ask for a ruling of the Chair. THE CHAIEMAN : Any motion of any member of this Convention to take up any particular section is in order. There is nothing in the rules of the Convention fixing the taking up of these matters, and the motion was made to take up the proposition in chief, and there was no objection from the floor and, therefore, it was before the house. And in the absence of anything in the rules to the contrary, it will be pre- sumed that the members of the Conven- tion can take up any matter at any time that they may see fit. ME. B. A. ECKHAET : Mr. Chair- man, I would like to rise to inquire whether the motion was made to take up one, or whether the motion was to the effect that No. 1 be adopted. THE CHAIEMAN: Be adopted. ME, B. A. ECKHAET: Well, then, I rise to a point of order: If the mo- tion was not made to take up the ques- tion of No. 1, but simply a motion made to adopt it, you are not proceed- ing in accordance with the procedure heretofore operating. THE CHAIEMAN : No objection was made upon the floor, and the house pro- ceeded to debate it, and in the absence of anything in the rules which must control the Chair, it will be assumed that the Convention will make its rules from day to day, and take up such matters for discussion as it may see fit. The matter now, it appears to me ME. McCOEMICK: Mr. Chairman— THE CHAIEMAN: Just one mo- ment, Mr. McCormick: It seems to me to be a tempest in a teapot. The matter now stands before the house upon Mr. McCormick’s motion to adopt the second alternative to No. 1, which produces all of the results that anybody wants, and if there is no objection ME. EOSENTHAL: I wanted to wait until you finished your sentence, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIEMAN: I was simply go- ing to suggest that it might be a good time now for the secretary to call the roll. MB. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to call attention to the fact that at a meeting of this Convention we passed a rule relating to the procedure, which rule was that we should begin with the alternative and work backwards to the main proposition. Isn’t that a matter of record? December 10 217 1906 : MMSIAHO THE CHAIRMAN : The Chair is un- der the impression that that was done — MR. WHITE: It was not done? THE CHAIRMAN: It is for this Convention from time to time as it sees fit to take up any proposition re- lating to the main proposition. The Chair cannot regulate the motions which members make, so long as they are germane to the subject or to the question under consideration. UR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied from my talks with a number of members here at this Con- vention that they are decidedly in doubt as to the number of aldermen that we should have here in the city. There are some members in this Convention who think that the number ought to be seventy, and other members of this Con- vention who think the number ought to be thirty-five. This is a matter on 'hich there may well be a difference of pinion. It seems to me, however, in voting on , we ought to take one matter into (Consideration. We have been speaking of an alderman representing a particu- lar ward. That is one point of view, ''but an alderman represents not only the ward, he represents the whole city, and tse, for instance, in the Sixth Ward, are interested not only in the sort of a man pe get from the Sixth Ward and who is elected to represent the Sixth Ward in the Council, but we are also interested in the men who represent the other thirty- four wards of the city. It seems to me that in view of that a$d in view of the fact that it is undesirable to get a large unwieldy body, that this is a matter on which we might well compromise so far as the number is concerned. I understood that Doctor Taylor’s mo- tion was to the effect, and that he in- tended to make it to the effect to change the number from seventy to fifty. That in effect is an amendment both to No. 1 and to the second alternative to 1. It strikes me, Mr. Chairman, that an amendment of that sort, which is ma- terial and upon which we ought to ' have an expression of opinion, ought to be allowed by the Chair and ought to be voted on separately. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair has no option. The entire matter is now be- fore the house. MR, ROSENTHAL: I move THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair’s rul- ings are purely in the interest of keep- ing the matter in some orderly fashion so that the entire matter may be pro perly presented. MR. TAYLOR : I would urge that motion, if it is in order, Mr. Chairman. MR. ROBINS: The point of order, or the question seems to be just this : When this proposition of Mr. McCor- mick’s is adopted, if adopted, it would be the sense of the Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MR. ROBINS: If it is voted down, then Dr. Taylor’s .motion is in order. Why not proceed and vote on this mo- tion of Mr. McCormick ’s and then we will be proceeding in an orderly fashion. (Cries of roll call.) THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. White has the floor. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, this is in the interest of orderly pro- cedure, and I wish to call the attention of the Convention to the action of the Convention as recorded on page 61 in which the motion was made by Mr. Jones that where alternatives exist we proceed to take up the last alternative and work back to the original proposi- tion. That motion was put and carried by this Convention and became the established order of procedure until this Convention chooses to change it. You will find that on page 61. I again, Mr. Chairman, renew my point of order, that we have not suspended that rule of procedure, and we have been proceeding wrongly in view of that motion. You will find it on page 61. December 10 218 1906 THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is aware that is true, but in the absence of any objection from the floor, the Chair assumed that the Assembly desired to take other action today. MR. SWIFT: That is the point I wished to make, that the Convention it- self by making no objection practically suspends the rule. The action of the Con- vention in permitting the motion to be made and adopted suspended the rule. (Cries of roll call.) THE CHAIRMAN : Tie secretary will call the roll upon Mr. McCormick’s substitute. Will you read the substitute first? The Secretary read the substitute again. MR. BADENOCH: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to say that for the nine years I have been a member of the Council, 1 have advocated the change of one aider- man to a ward, and I think in my actions before the committee to which Mr. Shan- ahan has referred, I so stated; but I believe that in a city as large as this that the number of wards should now be di- vided, and I am therefore ih favor of about fifty wards. Yeas — Crilly, Eckhart, B. A., Me Cormick — 3. Nays — Badenoch, Baker, Beilfuss, Bennett, Brosseau, Brown, Burke, Church, Clettenberg, Cole, Dever, Dixon, G. W., Dixon, T. J., Eckhart, J. W., Erickson, Guerin, Hill, Hoyne, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, Lundberg, MacMillan, McKinley, Merriam, O’Don- nell, Owens, Pendarvis, Post, Powers, Raymer, Robins, Rosenthal, Sethness, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Snow, Swift, Taylor, Yopieka, Werno, White, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 47. (During the roll call.) DR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to substitute for No. 1 and for the first alternative. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, Doctor, wait until after the vote is announced. Upon the motion to substitute the second alternative to No. 1, the yeas are three and the nays are forty-seven, and the motion is lost. The Secretary will read the substitute for the first alternative and for No. 1. I understand, Doctor, that that is the substitute for both No. 1 and the first alternative to No. 1? DR, TAYLOR: Yes. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Taylor: Substitute for No. 1 and the first alterna- tive to No. 1: The charter shall provide for the redistricting the city into fifty wards, having due regard to the equaliza- tion of population and territory ; one alderman to be elected from each ward. MR. POWERS: I move to lay that substitute on the table. MR. LINEHAN: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps it would be in order to just calLthe attention of this Conven- tion td the report of the original com- mittee on municipal legislation at this time. I have here a copy and the three paragraphs of this subject which we are discussing at the present time are as follows: I I ly. That the city shall be re-districted into seventy wards; that each ward shall elect ^-NbW7~that^ is rather~stnmg-iaTiguager That is ten or fifteen years ago, and I want to say that I consider this is the next step, if you pay them a salary of $3,500. You want to get men of abili- December 10 225 1906 ty, and if yon say so, men who have shown success in their own business. Why, you have men here who have failed in their own business. Failed! And they come in here and make a successful salary out of corporations here after their own business has failed them. That is what you have when you pay that salary. As soon as you pay them a commensurate salary you raise the personnel of this Council, un- til today there is no longer the finger of scorn pointed at it. I say it should be $5,000 instead of $3,500, because there are men in this Council that $5,000 is not too much of a salary for. ME. EOBINS: I am a little sur- prised at this substitute or amendment coming from a business man. It would seem to me from observing the actual working of the City Council, and the condition of the city for the past few years, that the reason that the alleys and the streets are as they are, is be- cause you do not pay your aldermen enough to get into the City Council men who can give enough time to it to make the alleys and the streets as they should be. One of the things that every man familiar with the City Coun- cil, and interested in the retention of honorable and able men in that body from year to year have had to meet, ever since I have been in this city, has been this statement: I cannot af- ford to serve any longer; I cannot do it. I have got to look out for my family and my own personal interests, and you know that I have to spend that, or nearly all of it, on every elec- tion. Now, let us look at the thing as it is. A campaign in the wards of the city that I know most about, requires about $1,200 of honest expenditure to really be in the race; and it requires sometimes $2,500 and $3,000 to get elected. Now, when an aldermen is elected from a ward, from the hour that he is elected until he leaves the City i Council, he is conscious of the fact that he is denying his business the at- tention that it requires, and that he is receiving no equivalent for himself or his family. Now, the aspiration to serve the city is a noble aspiration, but we should put it in such a way as to make it possible for any man to give the city good service, and not at the same time to feel that he is robbing his own home. Now, all you have to do is to remem- ber the last election. We remember that several of the aldermen were not candidates for office, and why? I went to some of these aldermen and urged them that they do not leave the City Council. They had served long and honorably, when I went to them. They said: “We cannot stay there any long- er; we have been there so long, and cannot stay there longer, because we are not paid enough to justify the tremendous loss of time. ” Whenever you go to an aldermen and ask him anything in regard to a spe- cial matter in which you may be par- ticularly interested, or which is partic- ularly interesting in your judgment, or in the judgment of your particular friends, or the people in your locality, no matter who, you feel mean about it, if you are on the square; you realize that you are taking this time from this man, and that he is receiving practical- ly no compensation in return. Now, the history of legislation in this country by city councils, as far as I know it, is that those city councils that are paid the least turn out the worst legislation, and those city councils that are paid the most represent the best people of the city. T wish that this provided for $5,000, and if I thought, Mr. Chairman, that the people of the city of Chicago were educated up to the point to know the value of a good alderman, and to make it possible for him to remain in the public service, I should offer an amendment of $5,000 — December 10 226 1906 to make this $5,000. The only reason I do not do that is because I am glad to get this much, and I think the peo- ple of Chicago will give more later. ME. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that this question about which we are concerning our- selves should really concern us in the Charter Convention. I do not think that this provision ought to be incor- porated in the fundamental laws for the government of this city at all. It seemfe to me it should be flexible. Therefore, I have sent to the desk a substitute. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the substitute offered by Mr. Rosenthal. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Rosen- thal: The compensation of aldermen shall be fixed by the City Council from time to time; provided that the salary of any alderman shall not be increased or diminished during his term of office. THE CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen, you have heard Mr. Rosenthal’s substitute for the entire matter. MR. SWIFT: I would suggest that there be added: “And shall not exceed the sum of $3,500 per year.” MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to say a word in answer to that? The City Council is the best judge of the financial condi- tion of the city, and it also can judge best as to what an alderman should have. The very men who are serving the city know best what their needs are. It seems to me that the entire matter can well be settled in the way I have suggested. MR. DEYER: It seems to me that idea is wrong in principle, for this reason: Many of the most notorious scandals that we have had in this coun- try have arisen because of the fact that a certain legislative body has de- manded to fix their own salaries; they are the ones that are particularly in- terested in that question, and they are called upon to act in a delicate posi- tion, where they are asked to vote in or out of their pockets, a certain sum of money. It seems to me they are not in a position to decide the question fair- ly. There are men of wealth in the community who may be influenced for the purpose of currying public favor by voting against the proposition which poorer men would not do. I do not think a member of a legislative body should be put in that position, partic- ularly when we have other indepen- dent and more or less disinterested bodies who are not doing it. MR. PENDARYIS: I think, Mr. Chairman, we should pass this No. 2 as it stands, with possibly an amendment in some way providing for a power to change; and I have prepared an amend- ment which I was going to offer after action was taken on the motion of Mr. Eekhart. I do not believe we should fix as a charter position a salary which cannot be changed except by amend- ment of the legislature, and I there- fore think we should adopt No. 2 as it stands, with a provision conferring power upon the City Council to change the salary by two-thirds vote of that body. THE CHAIRMAN : Is there any further discussion? I would suggest that we dispose of Mr. Rosenthal’s mo- tion — MR. YOPICKA: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me you should make it $3,500 as a minimum, with an increase to $5,000, and you will take into consid- eration men of intelligence; make it a minimum salary of $3,500, and a maxi- mum of $5,000, and not more than that. MR. RAYMER: I think it would be a mistake for this Convention, in fixing the salary of the aldermen at a stated figure. Alderman Dever has given us a very good reason for it. Not only would the body itself hesi- tate to take action because of the criti- cism that it would be subjected to, but December 10 227 1906 it is a fact that in some campaigns they would make that a test question. Fixing the salary by the aldermen might mean that some people are just mean enough to attack an alderman in voting a salary which the individual may think a little excessive. I want to say from experience, gentlemen, that the question of getting elected to the aldermanic position is sufficiently diffi- cult without this body putting upon it any more restrictions than we have. I believe that $3,500 is right; it is right today, and it will be right for a good many years to come. I do not believe that the onus or the duty of fixing the salary should be placed upon the aider- men. I believe that this Convention should fix it here and now; and for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of No. 2 as printed. THE CHAIRMAN : Are you ready for the question — Mr. Rosenthal’s sub- stitute — as many as favor it, signify by saying aye. The motion was lost. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal’s substitute is lost. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is now upon the amendment of Mr. Eck- hart to the original question, amending the amount from $3,500 to $2,500. MR. ECKHART, (B. A.) : I believe that that amendment ought to prevail. I am not very particular about it, but I do want to challenge a statement that has been made during the discussion that the reform in the City Council of Chicago dates from the day or time when they were paid a salary of $1,500. I believe that that is a mistake. I think the gentleman was in error. The reform of the city of Chicago dates from the day when other agencies were at work with the people in this city which required of their public officials closer attention to duty. It is not the $1,500 that reformed the Council, but it was the civic pride and the public spirit of the citizens and the civic bodies that demanded of their aldermen an account- ing. I think there ought to be a limit as to the salary that should be paid and it ought to be fixed; but I think, how- ever, it should not be extravagant, it should not be large until the city is in a financial condition to afford it. I be- lieve there are many improvements necessary in this city that will require an increase in our valuation and a higher rate of taxation in order to make the necessary progress in that direc- tion. I think physically our city is in a deplorable condition, and I think, too, that until such time as our valuation of the assessable property increases — until the taxation is increased and the improvements are made, that we shall not be in a position to vote too high a salary. MR. BADENOCH: I want to say in justification of what Mr. Robins said, he is right, and that Mr. Eckhart has stated the truth also, that it was the civic bodies at that time which had something to do with the reform of the City Council. This fact that the civic bodies advocated the paying of salaries is one of the things that were of neces- sity in that work. Every gentleman who is in the Council today that was in the Council at that time will remem- ber that it was the custom whenever the property of the city of Chicago came before the Council in any way for one of the gentlemen who felt he was not personally in favor of the civic bodies, it was the custom for him to argue that the aldermen donate their salaries. That seemed to be the very worst thing in their judg- ment that could happen, that some men were being paid a salary. Now, T was going to refrain from taking any part in this discussion as an alderman, because T expect to remain in the Coun- cil for some time longer, and maybe I have said too much already; but the idea of paying a salary to the alder- December 10 228 1906 men would do great things in my judg- ment is reforming the Council. You have to have good men. Many of the men come from wards represented by people that are not wealthy people and they send them who could not afford to spend their time representing those wards in the Council without enough money to pay their campaign expenses at least. MR. ROSENTHAL: I have sent to the desk another substitute which I think answers the question. THE CHAIRMAN: Will the Secre- tary read Mr. Rosenthal’s amendment? THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Rosen- thal: The compensation of aider- men shall be at the rate of $3,500 per annum, provided, first, that the City Council shall have power to increase this salary on a two-thirds vote of all the members of the Council, and, second, that the salary of no alderman shall be increased or diminished dur- in his term of office. MR. RAYMER: I made the state- ment a few minutes ago that I be- lieved' $3,500 was enough today and would be enough for many years to come; I still believe I am right and I move that this amendment be tabled. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion be- fore the house is Alderman Raymer ’s motion to table Mr. Rosenthal’s amend- ment to Mr. Eekhart’s amendment to the main question. MR. MERRIAM: I don’t know what the parliamentary status of af- fairs is at this moment but I desire to speak on Mr. Eckhart’s amendment. Is that now pending? THE CHAIRMAN: The matter pending is Mr. Rosenthal’s amendment. We will try to get to Mr. Eckhart’s amendment after a bit. MR. McCORMICK: I would like to have Mr. Rosenthal’s amendment read again. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal’s ' amendment shall be read again by the Secretary. The Secretary read Mr. Rosenthal’s amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon the motion to lay Mr. Rosenthal’s amendment upon the table. As many as favor that motion signify by saying ‘ 1 aye. ’ ’ MR. ROBINS: It seems to me that motion is a wise motion. It seems to me to not trouble the legislature with the matter of the salary of the City Council is a good thing to do, when it is sufficiently safeguarded and has been, previously established, why it seems to me it is a wise provision to make at this time. It insures home rule in that matter, and sufficiently safeguards it to make it certain that without public knowledge there would be no increase, and provides a way by which increase may be had without burdening the legislature with that matter. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the provision should prevail. THE CHAIRMAN: As many as fa- vor the motion of Mr. Raymer to table Mr. Rosenthal’s amendment MR. ROSENTHAL: Roll call. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you desire a roll call? As many as favor the motion to lay on the table will signify by saying “aye. ” Those opposed “no.” The motion to table is carried. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Eckhart’s amendment to the pending matter is before the house. MR. MERRIAM: I had the floor some time ago, and I may have ex- ceeded my privilege. But I rise to sup- port the amendment offered by Mr. Eckhart to substitute $2,500 for $3,500. I do not believe that an increase to $3,500 at this time would be advisable or desirable because, in the first place, it calls for an outlay upon the part of the city for the seventy aldermen of more than $140,000, which in the pres- December 10 229 1906 ent financial condition of the city would seem to be a doubtful proposi- tion. The city is now hard pressed for funds to get along with, and to add an additional burden of $140,000 immediately, it seems to me is almost too much a strain on the city’s fi- nances. Furthermore, I doubt whether $3,500 would prove to be better than $2,500 for this reason: it would make the place more attractive, it would make the campaign for nomination more strenuous and much more expensive, for the higher the salary is the greater would be the fight for the position. There would be a stubborn fight for the nomination, and also a stubborn fight for the election. If the salary was $1,500 the expense would not be so great; if you make it $3,500 you in- crease the expense of securing the nom- ination and increase the expense of the election. This would be more true when you consider the fact that the propo- sition now pending recommended by the committee that the term of aider- men be extended from two years to four years. Now, suppose a candidate for aldermen in his campaign, wants to spend his entire salary, that would be at least four times $3,500, or $14,000. Now, I doubt very much if the salary was increased to $2,000 more than it is now whether the aldermen after all would care very much for it. We are now paying larger salaries for aider- men — or as large as are paid in any other city in the country. Generally they are paid $1,000, or $5 a session. It seems to me we are up to the rea- sonable limit, at least with the addi- tion of $1,000. $2,500 constitutes a fair salary. A man is not expected to devote his entire time to this work and he does not, but it is something which is a sort of adjunct to some other business or occupation, his regular work, therefore I am in favor of the amendment offered by Mr. Eckhart. ME. HILL: I think the Convention should settle this matter of the amount to be paid to aldermen right here and now. We have had the same question before the legislature for two or three sessions, and it is a fact that there are a number of members that are afraid to vote upon the question be- cause they are afraid their constitu- ents won ’t like what they do. Now, the question of the price it seems to me is an important one. We don’t want a Council for the city of Chicago that shall be known as a rich man’s council. We want to make this a matter that men of moderate means will aspire to this office, without sac- rificing their own business. I think they should be paid a compensation for their time. The price of $3,500 I do not think is at all large. It is more than most men expect to get, but we hope to get good business men, who have their own business, men who have at the present time moderate salaries, and we must pay them enough so that they will feel they are not sacrificing their business in accepting this posi- tion. I think $3,500 is not out of rea- son. THE CHAIRMAN: Will the Secre- tary call the roll upon Mr. Eckhart ’s amendment? Mr. Eckhart ’s amend- ment was to substitute the words “$2,500” for the words “$3,500.” Yeas— Eckhart, B. A.; Eckhart, J. W.; Jones, MacMillan, McKinley, Mer- riam, O’Donnell, Shedd, White — 9. Nays — Badenoch, Baker, Beebe, Beil- fuss, Bennett, Brosseau, Brown, Burke, Church, Clettenberg, Cole, Crilly, Dever, Dixon, G. W. ; Dixon, T. J.; Guerin, Hill, Hoyne, Kittleman, Lathrop, Line- han, Lundberg, McCormick, Owens, Pendarvis, Post, Powers, Raymer, Rob- ins, Rosenthal, Sethness, Shanahan, Shepard, Snow, Swift, Yopicka, Werno, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 40. THE CHAIRMAN: On Mr. Eck- hart ’s motion to amend by substituting December 10 230 1906 ‘ ‘$2,500” for “$3,500,” yeas 9, nays 40, and the amendment is lost. The ques- tion reverts upon Mr. McCormick’s mo- tion to adopt the second paragraph as printed. As many as are in favor sig- nify by saying “aye. ” Those apposed “no.” The ayes have it and it is so ordered. MR. McCORMICK: I move we ad- journ. I understand the rules are to adjourn at 5 o’clock THE CHAIRMAN: I do not under- stand that there is such a rule. MR. McCORMICK: If not, I move we adjourn now. THE CHAIRMAN: There are two matters to come up here, the first is a motion introduced by Professor Mer- riam at the last meeting; what will you do with that; it was laid over un- til today? MR. SNOW: If you are going to put his motion, there is another motion I want to bring up before the Conven- tion. THE CHAIRMAN : Let us dispose of Professor Merriam’s first. MR. BURKE: I move the adoption of that motion. THE CHAIRMAN: It is moved and -seconded that Professor’s Merriam’s motion for the appointment of a com- mittee be concurred in. All those in favor say “aye.” Opposed, “no.” The motion is carried. MR. SNOW: There is one matter in connection with that portion of the charter referring to the City Council that has not yet been taken care of or cognizance of. I think Mr. Rosenthal probably has a provision there which will be considered, and I suggest offer- ing it now in order that it may be published and we may see it later. I refer to the provision covering the length of the term of the members of the Council. MR. ROSENTHAL: That is already before the Convention. MR. SNOW: It is before the Con- vention? MR, ROSENTHAL: Yes, it is be- fore the Convention. MR. O’DONNELL: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn now. Some of the members of this Convention have another meeting to attend. THE CHAIRMAN: The Convention will be unable to meet in this room Wednesday afternoon on account of a meeting of the Board of Local Im- provements. That is the only meeting they will have which will interfere with the Charter Convention work. The Chair would like to ask if the Con- vention want to fix a time now for the next day meeting, or do you want to wait until the meeting of tomorrow evening to fix a time? MR. SNOW: Tomorrow evening. I suggest that it go over until tomorrow evening. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection the meeting stands adjourned until tomorrow evening at 7:30 o’clock. MR. WHITE: What is the special order? THE CHAIRMAN : The special or- ders are for this week, and I presume the Convention will take up the rou- tine. And the Convention stood adjourned to meet Tuesday, December 11, 1906, at 7 :30 o ’clock p. m. December 10 231 1906 MEMORANDA. These memoranda indicate the various matters adopted by the Convention. (See page 50 and succeeding pages of the proceedings. II. CONSOLIDATION. 1. The corporate authorities existing at present for the government of the park systems of Chicago shall be abol- ished and the management of the parks shall become a department of the city government. 2. The administration of the public school system of the city of Chicago and of the Public Library shall con- stitute departments of the city govern- ment. III. THE MAYOR. 1. The charter shall continue sub- stantially the provisions of the pres- ent laws regarding the qualifications and executive functions of the mayor. 2. The charter shall continue the provisions of the present laws regard- ing the relation of the mayor to the city council. Resolved, that it is the sense of this Convention that a clause be inserted in the charter designating a city official who shall act as mayor during the ab- sence or inability of the mayor. First Alternative to 2 b. The mayor shall have a right to a seat in the city council, but shall have no vote. He shall have the right to speak and present messages and intro- duce measures subject to the general rules of procedure of the city council. Second Alternative to 2: The charter shall continue the pres- ent provisions of the law regarding the relation of the mayor to the city coun- cil, except that he shall not preside at the meetings of the city council, but the city council shall elect its own presiding officer from its members. 3. The veto power of the mayor shall be as now prescribed by law. The following resolution on the sub- ject of The Mayor is still pending: 4. The term of office of the mayor shall be four years. Alternative to 4: The term of office of the mayor shall be the same as that of the members of the city council. IY. ELECTIONS. First alternative to 1: Elective city officers shall be nominated under a sys- tem of direct primaries, with appropri- ate provision for independent nomina- tions by petition. 2. The names of all the nominees for each office shall be printed on the ballot under the title of the office for which they are candidates, in alphabeti- cal order, and the designation of the party, if any, to which they belong. The following resolution on the sub- ject of suffrage for women is still pend- ing: 3. The charter shall contain no pro- vision for conferring the right of suf- frage on women. 4. a. The election of all city offi- cers, including those for the municipal court, shall be held in the spring. Pro- vided, however, that judges of the mu- nicipal court shall be elected at a time when no offices other than judicial are to be filled. 5. Candidates and political commit- tees shall be required to make sworn statements of receipts and expenditures of any campaign for nomination or election. December 10 232 1906 Y. CIVIL SERVICE. 1. All departments of the city gov- ernment shall be under an appropriate civil service law. Alternative to 1: a. The civil service law shall apply to the department of public parks. The application of the civil service law to the department of public parks shall not operate in and of itself to dis- charge the present employees. b. The civil service law shall apply to the municipal court. The Bailiff and Chief Clerk of the Municipal Court shall be subject to re- moval by a majority of the judges of the court, after a hearing, for incompe- tency, inefficiency, malfeasance or mis- feasance in office. The reasons for such removal shall be specified in writing and shall be spread at large upon the records of the court. Section 2 of Civil Service, together with resolution printed in the proceed- ings of December 6, have been referred to the Committee on Municipal Elec- tions, Appointment and Tenure of Office, with instructions to report to the Con- vention within ten days. YI. THE CITY COUNCIL. The charter shall provide for redis- tricting the city into seventy wards, of compact and contiguous territory, and with an equitable distribution of area and population, as soon as possible after the adoption of this charter, one aider- man to be elected from each ward. The city shall thereafter be redis- tricted by the City Council every ten years after the federal census has been taken, but no more than seventy wards shall be made. 2. The compensation of aldermen shall be at the rate of thirty-five hun- dred dollars per annum. The following resolution on the sub- ject of THE CITY COUNCIL is still pending: The term of office of aldermen shall be four years. The aldermen shall be periodically elected at an election held two years after the mayoralty election. December 10 233 1906 Resolutions offered from the floor of the Convention, but not acted upon. BY ME. ROSENTHAL. As an amendment to Chapter IV. en- titled ELECTIONS. By adding the following proposition numbered 6 : 6. The only elective city officers (not including aldermen and municipal judges) shall be the Mayor and City Treasurer. The City Treasurer shall be ex-officio city collector. BY MR. BENNETT: XXII. 5. SECTION Nothing in this act shall be construed to modify, impair or affect or to confer upon the city coun- cil power to pass any ordinance modi- fying, impairing or conflicting with the provisions of Section 18 of an act en- titled “An act to provide for the an- nexation of cities, incorporated towns and villages or parts of same to cities, incorporated towns and villages” ap- proved April 25th, 1889, or to any pro- vision of any law of Illinois relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors or creat- iag or defining criminal offenses or relat- ing to the prosecution and punishment thereof, nor shall any amendment or addition be made to the charter of the City of Chicago, except by the General Assembly, by which this section, or any part thereof shall, directly or indirectly, be abrogated, repealed or annulled. BY. MR. SHEPARD: Resolved, That in any act providing for the formation and disbursement of the police pension fund the following provision be incorporated: That the members of the police de- partment to be included in the bene- fits of such pension fund shall be as follows: The General Superintendent of Po- lice, Assistant General Superintendent of Police, Inspectors, Captains, Lieu- tenants, Sergeants, Patrolmen, Patrol Drivers, Superintendent of Horses, Su- perintendent of Construction, Superin- tendent Bureau of Identification, As- sistant Superintendent Bureau of Iden- tification, Secretary of the Police De- partment, Private Secretary to the Gen- eral Superintendent of Police, Police Custodian Stolen Property, Chief Clerk Secretary’s office, Clerk in Secretary’s office, Chief Clerk in Detective Bu- reau, Chief Operator, Assistant Chief Operator, Operators, Drillmaster, Chief Matron, Matrons, Feed Inspector, De- partment Printer, Vehicle Inspectors, Photographer, Assistant Photographer, Stenographers, Supply Drivers, Finger Print Expert a'nd such other mem- bers as may hereafter be provided for by ordinance. SPECIAL ORDERS For Week Beginning Monday, December 10. SECTION X. — Revenue, at page 53. SECTION XVII.— Education, at page 56. PARAGRAPH 3.— Suffrage, at page 52. December 10 234 1906 CORRECTIONS. MR. SHANAHAN: On page 92, first column: Line 13, insert word “speak” instead of “come.” MR. SHANAHAN: On page 101, second column: Line 22, after the word ‘ 1 then 5 ’ add ‘ ‘ who shall. ’ 5 MR. SHEDD: On page 128, first column, second line, strike out “in a” and insert therefor : ‘ 1 eliminating the . 1 ’ Also, in the third line, after the word ‘ 1 paper, ’ ’ insert ‘ 1 but retaining the par- ty column.” MR. POST : On page 130, second column, fifth line from bottom^, sub- stitute the word “constitutional” for the word “satisfactory.” MR. SHEPARD: On page 134, first column, last paragraph, fifth line, strike out “that is, that all municipal officers and city officers, including the municipal court judges shall be elected in the spring” and insert therefor: “that is, that all city officers shall be elected in the spring at one and the same election, except the municipal court judges . 1 * MR, SHANAHAN: On page 159, first column, next to last line, strike out “it along” and insert “about its passage. ’ * MR. WERNO: On page 161, left hand column, line 25, strike out the word “has” and insert in lieu thereof the word “have.” Also on page 161, right hand column, 13th line, strike out the words “to give” and insert in lieu thereof the words “who gives.” MR. LINE HAN : On page 162, first column, next to last line, strike out word “devoted” and insert “di- vorced.” Also same column, last line, strike out word “ to ” and insert “from.” Also, same page, second col- umn, first line, strike out “we are pro- posing” and insert “a proposal.” MR. POWERS: On page 166, sec- ond column, fourth, fifth and sixth lines, strike out “Well, can’t he do that without the consent of this Conven- tion?” and insert in lieu thereof “He cannot do that without the consent of this Convention. ’ * MR. SHANAHAN: On page 170, first column, fourth line, after the word “entrance” insert the following: “to the service protected by the law.” PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1906 (Hljtraijtf (Cl)artrr (In mi nit uni Convened, December 12, 1900 Headquarters 171 WASHINGTON STREET TELEPHONE MAIN 4877 Milton J. Foreman Chairman Alexander H. Revell. Vice-Chairman M. L. McKinley, ... Secretary ,;nh» Barrett Chamberlin, a&st. Secy December 11 237 1906 PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Regular Meeting, Tuesday, December 11, 1906 7:30 O’clock P. M., in the City Council Chamber OFFICIAL RECORD Published by authority of the Chicago Charter Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: The Convention will be in order. The Secretary will call the roll. ^ Present — Foreman, Chairman, and 'Beebe, Bennett, Brown, Burke, Carey, ‘o Church, Clettenberg, Dever, Dixon, G. W., ^Eckhart, B. A., Erickson, Fisher, Guerin, ^Hill, Hunter, Jones, Kittleman, Linehan, ^MacMillan, McCormick, McKinley, Mer- jfriam, O’Donnell, Oehne, Owens, Paullin, ^Pendarvis, Post, Rainey, Raymer, Rin- 'f aker, Robins, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Swift, Taylor, Thompson, Vopicka, Walker, Werno, Wil- kins, Young — 46. Absent — Badenoch, Baker, Beilfuss, Brosseau, Cole, Crilly, Cruice, Dixon, T. J., Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Fitzpatrick, Gansbergen, Graham, Haas, Harrison, Hoyne, Lathrop, Lundberg, McGoorty, Patterson, Powers, Revell, Sethness, Shedd, Sunny, White, Wilson, Zimmer — 28. THE CHAIRMAN: A quorum pres- ent. The Secretary has a number of communications which he will read. MR. WERNO: I would like to ask what became of the communication re- ceived the other day from the United Societies, what disposition was made of it? THE CHAIRMAN : It was read here and ordered printed, but, by a mistake of the printer, one clause was left out. The communication itself is printed. MR. WERNO: The proposition was not printed. THE CHAIRMAN: Was it not, Mr. Secretary? THE SECRETARY: The letter was printed; the resolution was left out. It will be inserted in the next proceedings. THE CHAIRMAN: It was an error of the printer’s. THE SECRETARY: It was set and just dropped out. MR. WERNO: In order that that may appear of record, I move that it be print- ed in the next copy of the proceedings of the Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: It would be print- ed, anyway, alderman ; the Secretary ex- December 11 238 1906 plained it to me, that the printer dropped it out. ME. POST : A point of information. THE CHAIEMAN: Yes, sir. ME. POST: In the minutes, on page 145, I am reported as having asked the Chairman what became of the substi- tute to the amendments that were to be reconsidered. That does not correctly re- port me. What my exact language was I cannot now recall, but the substance of my inquiry was what became of par- agraph B of Section 4 A, Section 4, on the subject of elections. That is the paragraph relating to the holding of elections in May. The answer of the Chairman w*as that on motion of Mr. Cole they were laid on the table. Now, I find Mr. Cole ’s motion to lay upon the table covered substitutes to reso- lutions then pending. I do not under- stand this particular one was pending. All I wish to know, Mr. Chairman, is what has become of that clause. I am informed by the Secretary that no action has been taken unless it was in- cluded in Mr. Cole ’s motion. THE CHAIEMAN : I presume it was assumed that it was included in Mr. Cole’s motion. I have no independent recollection of it. ME. POST : Shall we so* understand that without any further question? THE CHAIEMAN: Yes, sir. ME. Post: Then I am satisfied. THE CHAIEMAN: Are there any further corrections or amendments to the minutes? If not ,they will stand approved as the records of the Con- vention. Let the secretary read the com- munications. There is a communication here from Mr. Eevell in relation to this proposition in regard to the election of Aldermen and the secretary will read it. THE SECEETAEY : By Mr. Eevell: The manner of selecting the common council is one of the most important problems which this Convention has to consider. In order to provide, what ap- pears to me to be a safe and compre- hensive plan, I introduced a series of resolutions in relation thereto. It is not worth while for me to restate the prop- ositions contained in the resolutions, be- cause I presume you are all familiar with them. Since introducing the resolutions, my opinion has been modified, I may say wholly changed, in relation to permit- ting an alderman to succeed himself. I am inclined to believe that it would be unwise to create restrictions which would deprive the public of the services of good aldermen. Indeed, it appears to me that an alderman ought to be able to render better service in succeed- ing terms than he was in the first term. The right sort of men should be con- tinued in the council just as long as they are willing to stay there. Concerning the resolutions, I desire the Convention to understand that I have no hard and fast convictions concern- ing any particular phase of the propo- sitions which they contain. I am open to conviction, if good objections can be offered against any of them. But unless such criticisms are made and sustained, I am strongly of the opinion that the plan proposed in the resolutions is freer from objection than any other which, thus far, has been brought to my no- tic^ / One of the strongest arguments in fa- t vor of the plan which I have proposed, is that it will relieve the public, to some extent at least, from bad ward dominations. When the election of al- dermen is confined to the voters of the ‘\ward, those who bring about the nomi- nations have much less to fear from . the condemnatory sentiment of the ward than they would fear from the voters of the entire city. The method under consideration would act automatically — and that is the most valuable plan for securing good results — to bring about good nominations. The final result would be that the people of the entire city would pass upon ward nominations, not December 11 239 1906 for the purpose of depriving the ward of representation, but to say which can- didate presented by the ward was most acceptable for the general purpose of the council. It should be kept in mind in this connection that under the present system the nomination and election of aider- men is left entirely to the voters of the ward. Under the ‘‘general system’’, whereby a city council would be nomi- nated and elected by the voters of all the city, the ward would have no proper representation. The plan proposed by me gives the ward the opportunity at /the primary election to select candidates. # Tlie voters of the entire city at the general election cannot reject all these candidates, but must select one of them. Thus, the ward has a voice in naming a representative of ward interests. The city at large next has a chance to select .^that alderman which the voters believe would best subserve the interests of the I city generally. It is erroneous to sup- l pose that under the system suggested the ward would be deprived of actual j representation. \]/t has always seemed to me that there is manifest unfairness in some of the wards of the city, sending to the council term after term, men who are notoriously unfit for such a position. Were the full burden of responsibility for such a selec- tion to fall upon such wards alone there would be less harm, as “the punishment would fit the crime. ’ ’ But for wards to contribute suoh men to a council which is to legislate for others who have no voice in their selection, is unfair. Objections may be made that by this method we are going to have too many candidates on a ticket. In common with what seems to be the sentiment of this Convention, I am in favor of reducing the number of candidates to the lowest possible limit, but only and always con- sistent with securing the best possible welfare of the people. It may be objected also that a sweep- ing city victory for one party or the other might too greatly change the com- plexion of the council. On consideration, it will be seen that the proposition would not operate in this way. It may be determined that the proper plan would be to have forty wards. By this plan but nine aldermen in addition to the one which would be elected any way, would be elected each year. Upon the basis, as here presented, of sixty wards, but fourteen additional aldermen would be elected each year. Probably half of the aldermen elected would be elected any- way by the victorious party; therefore, it can readily be seen that it reduces the possible sweeping change to a matter of small importance. In other words, it would have to take sweeping and con- secutive victories on the part of any one party to make the great change which seems to be apparent without analyzing the proposition. The interests of the city as a whole are greater than the interests of any particular portion of the city. In other words, the interests of the entire city are greater than the interests of a ward. One of the worst features of the pres- ent system is the fact that the general interests of the city are made to subserve the personal interests of aldermen who trade and traffic in them in order to secure local advantages for wards, in order that the alderman may popularize himself in his own ward. This trafficking in the interests of the city is one of the very worst abuses of the present system. It may be set down as a fact that no city government can ever be right as a whole unless it is as nearly right as it can be made in all its parts. More and more as the city grows, it is obvious to me that we will need men as aldermen who shall be, within certain limits, real administrative officials — as- sistant mayors of the wards — of the smaller Chicagos. There are men in every ward who are as large as the city. But this fact does not make them December 11 240 1906 too large for a ward. It only makes them more competent to deal with the local problems of their wards. By hav- ing the stamp of approval of the entire city upon them, they will be all the more efficient in bringing about benefi- cial results for their wards. It is especially important when the sanitary and street cleaning services of a ward are considered that men of broad views and fearless characteristics be elected as aldermen. And, such men once elected and enabled to carry out proper regulations within their ward, would be in no doubt of renomination and re-election. In the four years of their service they would be enabled to establish permanently changed and im- proved conditions. They would be en- abled to eliminate unwarranted objec- tions and lawless objectors from the politics of the ward. To properly perform the service of alderman according to the plan which I have suggested, would require that the alderman give almost his entire time to such service. He should be properly compensated and furnished with a secre- tary. Proper expenditures of this sort would be the most profitable investment the taxpayers of Chicago could possibly make. Some of the wards of Chicago have as much as 60,000 population. Compare the expenses of operating a city of 60,- 000 persons with what the plan which is here proposed would cost for each ward. Then apportion the general ex- penses of the City of Chicago to the respective wards. The result of such figuring will show that the administrative charges against the wards to be very far less than that of a city of equal size. We are just now planning for a better Chicago — for conditions that will bring greater contentment to our people. The Burnham scheme may take many years to fully accomplish and this is an im- portant matter for the future. And more than ever before, as far as pos- sible, there should be eliminated from the city council those who are not able to plan for the making of Chicago a ‘ 1 world city”. But, in the accomplishment of such a result, it should not be lost sight of that those portions of the city which need sanitation and the creation of more wholesome living conditions should be among the first to be cared for. The surroundings of the wage worker should not be allowed to stand as evidence in proof of the criticism which unwarranted agitation makes of the ‘ 1 present order of things ’ \ Among the suggestions which have come to me since the introduction of the resolutions referred to, is one that a good plan would be to have the ward nomi- nate and elect one alderman. Then, in addition, the ward would nominate a second candidate. But upon this second candidate the entire city would vote. It is thought by some that the ward and the city would be brought into closer co-operation in this manner. I am hardly convinced that any plan which seeks to perpetuate the alderman which owes noth- ing to any constituency except that which exists in his ward, is a good plan. But, as I said at the outset, I hope there will be the widest possible discus- sion of the propositions which I have offered. There are perhaps advantages in the scheme which I have overlooked. There may be objections which have not occurred to me. At any rate, I will be pleased at any conclusion which may be reached as the result of full and fair discussion. (During the reading.) MB. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I move that the communication of Mr. Bevell be printed in the record, and that further reading be dispensed with. THE CHAIRMAN: It is moved that the further reading of this communica- tion be dispensed with. Is that your intention? MR. CHURCH : I understand this is December 11 241 1906 merely an argument of Mr. Eevell that he has prepared and that is being read. ME. SMULSKI : Is this a matter that we are likely to vote on this even- ing? THE CHAIEMAN : We have already voted on it. ME. SHEPAED: Let’s hear it. ME. EOSENTHAL: The matter of the election of aldermen, Mr. Chairman, is still before us. This communication may bear upon it. I think we should hear it. THE CHAIEMAN: I think the quick- est way is to continue the reading of the communication. The reading by the secretary will be continued. THE CHAIEMAN: If there is no objection, the communication will be printed in the record. The secretary has another communication. THE SECEETAEY : I have no more. THE CHAIEMAN : Mr. Eosenthal, do you desire the floor? If the gentlemen will talk louder, please, so that the sten- ographer will get it. ME. EOSENTHAL: I do not desire to address the house at this time. THE CHAIEMAN: The first matter that will be taken up here will be the resqlution presented by Mr. Eosenthal at the last meeting, relating to the term of aldermen, and the time and manner of their election. ME. O’DONNELL: Where is it re- ported? THE SECEETAEY: On page 232, the lower right-hand column. The fol- lowing resolution on the subject of the City Council is still pending: “The term of office of aldermen shall be four years. The aldermen shall be periodi- cally elected at an election held two years after the mayoralty election. ’ ’ MB. EOSENTHAL: I move the adop- tion, Mr. Chairman, of that proposition. MB. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I think that this question of the term of office of aldermen should be considered in con- nection with the term of office of mayor. The question concerning the mayor’s term of office was deferred. It is printed on page 231. Now the alternative to 4, is to the effect that the term of the office of the mayor shall be the same as that of the City Council. It seems to me that it would be better for us to decide whether or not they shall have the same term of office first, and then we can decide whether the term of office of each shall be two years or four years. Therefore, I move as a substitute to Mr. Eosenthal ’s motion, that we adopt the alternative to 4. ME. EOSENTHAL :' Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my motion temporarily. THE CHAIEMAN: Your motion is to take up alternative No. 4, printed on page— ME. JONES : 231 ; which reads, ‘ ‘ The term of office of the mayor shall be the same as that of the members of the City Council. ME. McCOEMICK: Mr. Chairman, I would ask Mr. Jones if he is willing to have his motion made that the term of office of both the mayor and aldermen shall be four years. I would like to see the term of the mayor be four years, if that is not possible, I would elect the mayor for four years, anyway. ME. JONES: I will withdraw my motion if Mr. McCormick wishes to make a motion that the term be four years. THE CHAIEMAN: Do you desire to make such motion? ME. McCOEMICK : My personal views are that both the mayor and aider- men should be elected for four years, and I wish to vote for that. If the Conven- tion should be in favor of giving the aldermen only two years, I would still be in favor of the mayor of four years. THE CHAIEMAN: There is no mo- tion before the house. ME. JONES: I would repeat what I said to Mr. McCormick, if he wishes to make that motion I would withdraw THE CHAIEMAN : State the motion. ME. McCOEMICK: That the term December 11 242 1906 of office of the major and the citj coun- cill shall be four rears. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion of Mr. McCormick, that the term of major and aldermen shall be four years. The matter is now before the house for its discussion. MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. McCormick. MR. McCORMICK: I believe the term of mayor and aldermen should be for four years because I believe we should make the hardships of holding pub- lic office as few as possible; and also be- cause I believe when a man is elected to an office he should have a suitable time in which to demonstrate his work. In the experience of the city of Chicago, a man is no sooner elected and has begun his work, no sooner an alderman has been elected and gotten fully into the har- ness until comes the question of his re- nomination and afterwards re-election. It is more often than otherwise, within that time, that he has not had a fair opportunity to develop the policy which he supports. It means when a man is elected for two years that he has stand- ing before him public sentiment, he is threatened by special interests who may oppose him with an attempt to defeat his re-nomination and defeat his re-election, with the effect of taking away from him the courage and high purpose which should be that of a man in public office. MR. FISHER : I would like to say, in addition to what Mr. McCormick has said, that I am in favor of Mr. Mc- Cormick’s resolution for the reason that he has named, and also for the reason that I think it would tend to lessen the influence of the city council or of the mayor either as to parts of a co-relative organization here. To attempt to have any system of checks and balances, if the term of office of either of them is less than that of the other, and under the system which has thus far been adopted by the Convention, of retaining the veto power in the mayor, if you add to that a term of office longer than that of al- dermen, we are going to that extent in- crease the relative influence of the mayor at the expense of the city council. It seems to me the proposition is clearly correct on that ground as well as for the reason stated by Mr. McCormick. THE CHAIRMAN: Any further dis- | cussion ? MR. KITTLEMAN: I oppose the motion of Mr. McCormick. I would be in favor of the mayor for four years, but I am opposed to electing the aldermen for four years, and I will tell you why. In the first place, we call the members of the legislature to account every two years; we call the members of Congress to account every two years. MR. ROSENTHAL: How about the j Senate? MR. KITTLEMAN: I will get to that later; and I assume that the legisla- tive body and the executive branch of the city government is now going to be sep- arated. We have taken the mayor out of the city council to preside over it, and we assume that the city council is going to be the legislative branch of this city. We have given them a salary of $3,500, which I don’t think is too much, but it is enough that they can afford to make a campaign every two years. And I don’t believe it would be wise to make a city council with a life of four years, and if you should happen to get a few bad ones in it you couldn’t get them out, and if you get good ones . you can re- elect them ; and I think it would be much better for the interests of the people to elect a council every two years and let them go back to the people for their endorsement. And, another reason, I believe it would be better in this great city, with all the interests that are here, and the interests that are to be here; public sentiment changes in less than four years, and you might have a council here that might be entirely out of harmony with the senti- 1 ment of this city and its needs, in four December 11 243 1906 years, and you might get a city council here that four years would be all the time you would ever want. I would like to vote for a mayor for four years, but I would like to elect a city council every two years. ME. LINEHAN : On page 5, of the first column — that is the report of the committee — I would like to move No. 2 as a substitute for that part of McCor- mick’s motion relating to aldermen. ME. LINEHAN: No. 2; that the al- dermen be elected for two years, and that all of the aldermen be elected at the same time. THE CHAIEMAN : Do you desire to move that as a substitute for that por- tion of the motion which relates to al- dermen ? MB. LINEHAN: Yes, sir. THE CHAIEMAN: That will re- quire a division of the question, and the Chair would suggest that you take a vote upon the mayoralty and then upon the aldermen. ME. LINEHAN : I have no objec- tion, but I don’t want to lose the right to that amendment before the house. MB. O’DONNELL: I move a divi- sion of the question. THE CHAIEMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion. All those in favor signify by saying ‘ ‘ aye. ’ ’ Op- posed ‘ 1 nay. ’ ’ The motion prevailed. THE CHAIEMAN : The motion is now that the mayor shall be elected for a term of four years. Are you ready for that question? All those in favor of the motion signify by saying “aye. ” Op- posed ‘ 1 nay. ’ ’ The motion prevailed. The next part of Mr. McCormick’s mo- tion is that the aldermen shall be elected for four years, and Mr. Linehan moves as a substitute for that motion No. 2 of the report of the committee on municipal legislature; that the aldermen be elected for two years and that all of the aldermen be elected at the same time. ME, LINEHAN: I would like to say a few words in regard to this. After due consideration by the com- mittee, that was the result. Now, sev- eral members were aldermen, and it was stated that in nearly every instance from 60 to 80 per cent of the aldermen were re-elected. That is sufficient rea- son to quiet any fears that may exist as to this council, when voting on the two years, voting to have them alto- gether, the possibility of leaving this council without proper adnimistration, or, rather, by taking away men who are trained in the work of this coun- cil, the danger that would exist in tak- ing them away. The answer to that is that 60 to 80 per cent always come back. That goes to show that the de- serving ones come back to this council. Then, the voting every two years is a matter of referendum. A mayor is elected with a certain policy; it may be the traction question, or it may be any other question. A board of aldermen is elected with him. The people can change their opinion inside of two years; as an expression of that change, they would change the great body of the aldermen, and that would be suf- ficient notification to the mayor that the policy is no longer desirable by the people. On the other hand, if the policy is de- sirable, and the aldermen are not sup- porting the mayor, there will be an opportunity for the people to send in someone that will support him. That was the argument offered by the com- mittee. There is also the possibility to my mind that this body might be subject to what is called dry rot, and the only way you can get that out of a body, a legislative body, or even a working body, is to discharge the whole gang and hire a new one. That is the way we do on a job. December 11 244 1906 I want to preserve the right of the people, if it is possible to do so. I have no fear of that whatsoever. I want to preserve the right of the people on the election day if it cleans out this whole council, if they so desire, and put in a new set of aldermen. I do not an- ticipate that they want to do so, but if they do, they are the ones that ought to have the right to do so, and not this council. I don’t fear that at any time it would be so cleaned out, but I want to preserve the right. MR. O’DONNELL: I think it would be a great mistake at this time for this city to elect aldermen for a term of four years. The people of Chicago have had a great deal of trouble with the aldermen. This body of aldermen has been a gerat concern to the people here for many years. I think it is not out of the way to say that the people of Chicago are in terror of their aldermen. Prom time to time it has been demon- strated that it takes the greatest watchfulness on the part of the people to keep the council that they elect here straight. It takes the greatest dili- gence and care in the respective wards of the city to see that rascals are pre- vented from coming to the council. The danger is all over the country, of the tyranny of the people by those who are elected and called servants of the people. In most instances they are mas- ters. Take your congress or your legis- lature, or this council, — it has done its best in Chicago to be masters of the people. Now, to go for four years, to give them a four-year term of office without a check on them, four years may be all they desire. It is not the money, the salary, that is paid to them, that should be the incentive; it should be the patriotism, the civic pride or love of the city that should actuate aldermen here in Chicago. It is not the paltry sum that is paid them for compensation. We want men— men who love Chicago, not alone this generation, but that will love generations to come — great, high, tall men, above any selfish desire, and for you to pass, to give them a four-year term here now, if you do that, you will have the full comple- ment of public enemies in this council. But you cannot give it to them for four years. The people of Chicago never will vote for a charter enlarging and extending this office to four years, and they should not. Give them two years, and if there is a good man elect- ed for two years — and the history of Chicago has been where a man who has been faithful, tried, and a trusted serv- ant and has proved himself so to the people, he has been returned without any question. We have had our own troubles trying to drive the rascals out. I am opposed to the four-year term, and I sincerely trust this Conven- tion will not make the mistake of mak- ing this office a four-year office. Two years is long enough. The people can be trusted and the people are never mis- taken. I have been in Chicago almost forty-five years, as man and boy, and I have not seen the people ungrateful very often. Occasionally there is a slip in the mind of the people, but in the main the people are grateful to public servants for faithfulness, for faithful service, and we can trust the people to return a good alderman. I sincerely trust the amendment offered by the gentleman to my left here will pass. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, we have just decided by a practically unanimous vote — at any rate, no one heard any dissenting voice — that the term of office of the mayor shall be four years. What reason has been advanced here upon this floor to-night why there should be any differentiation between the office of the mayor and the term of office of the aldermen. It is within the recollection of all of us that we have had sitting in the chair occupied by the Chairman this evening men who have been just as bad, if not worse, possi- December 11 245 1906 bly they were worse than any of the worst members that we have ever had in the council. Now, we are going to elect men of that sort, who have legal power upon the action of .the council, and over whose veto a measure can be passed only by a two-thirds vote — you are going to elect that man for four years and elect members of the council for a term of only two years. What reason is there for this differ- ence? Now, it seems to me that if we act in this way we shall not ac- complish the real reform for which this Convention was organized; that we are not making any real progress in munic- ipal affairs. For years one thing that has been a blessing in this city above all others has been that we have a coun- cil-governed city; not a mayor-governed city. You take other cities — take a city like New York. New York is not a council-governed city. New York is governed by the legislature practically, but it is not governed by a council. There is no such thing as real home rule in New York. Now, here we have a city in which we are going to have real, true home rule. We know, as a matter of practical knowledge and as a matter of common observation, that many a man when he first gets into the council is not well qualified to sit there, but as he goes along he gains ex- perience; and about the time the man is really experienced, about the. time the man becomes useful as a public servant, he is turned out of the coun- cil, and perhaps somebody else is elect- ed in his place. From the moment he gets in, as a matter of fact, he is look- ing forward to the next election, or he is looking forward to his retirement. We should not have this state of affairs. And the only way to change it — the only way to remedy it — is by electing our aldermen for a longer time. We have heard a great deal of talk on the floor of this Convention, and we hear a great deal of talk outside about the voice of the people, and about the government of the people. We are forgetting our bearings, it seems to me, at times. This government of ours is not a government by the people in a narrow or democratic sense; and the term I am using 11 democratic,” is not in the party sense, but I use the word in the proper sense of the term. It is not that sort of government, but the representative form of government. We send our representatives into the council chambers, and into the halls of the legislature, and into the halls of congress for the purpose of governing the people. That is the only way in which we conduct a proper sort of a government. We cannot conduct it in any other way. Now, let us be care- ful. It seems to me this is the proper principle to follow; that is, to be care- ful about the men we send into our council chambers, and the men we send into our legislative halls. And these chimerical troubles we hear so much about will be done away with. We have heard some talk here about the sentiments of the people changing. Of course, the sentiments of the people change; they fluctuate constantly. They change in the course of— some people — every six months; possibly every three months. Do you want them to govern us, do you want that sort of government, or do you want that senti- ment reflected in our government? Our legislative bodies should be more con- servative than the people, but not more conservative than some persons intend they should be. But the legislature should be representative of the people, and composed of the leaders of the peo- ple, for they are the men who really act and propose legislation, and not of persons whose ears are merely close to the wall to see and hear what the multi- tude may want them to do — a multitude that has not considered the question as we, i it our councils, consider them; not with the care that students should con- December 11 246 1906 sider them. These men are delegated to these chambers for that very pur- pose. Under those circumstances it seems to me we should be making a great mistake to shorten the term. At any rate we should be making a mis- take in making the term less. As has been well pointed out by Mr. Fisher, not only at this time, but in a previous meeting, it would be a decided error to exalt the office of mayor in the council- governed city; and it is really our in- tention to have a council-governed city — it would be a mistake to exalt the office of mayor over that of alderman. I think, therefore, this motion should be voted down. MB. McCORMICK: I want to speak just a word. THE CHAIRMAN: It will require unanimous consent of the house. MR. McCORMICK: But this is an- other motion. THE CHAIRMAN: This is another motion. I beg pardon. MR. McCORMICK: I want to say a few words about the four-year term for aldermen. I fully agree with this gentleman who said that aldermen should be held to strict account for their action, and that all the men who are un- faithful to their trust should be de- feated at the polls at the earliest pos- sible opportunity. But this is not the only way to secure good aldermen. Good men should be encouraged to hold their office. They should be strengthened in their desire to do right, and the four-year term will be an en- couragement and will add strength to their arms. The general public takes general in- terest in public affairs; but special in- terests take special interests in public affairs. A courageous, honest alderman is continually stepping on the toes of some special interest. He is continually making an attack on spe- cial interests, and their rights by a righteous vote upon such a subject as, say, the traction question or some prop- osition equally as important. The gen- eral public may not be at present in- formed as to the value of his vote to them, but the special interests know they have lost something that they ought not to have. Among other votes taken in recent years was the vote of licensing. The men who voted for thousand-dollar license aroused an or- ganization bound to oppose them. There have been several votes taken on the wide-tire ordinance, and the men who voted for the wide tires arrayed an organization against them. In the case of one alderman who voted for the original wide-tire ordinance, on coming up for election the next spring, his ward was flooded with circulars, and by one thing and another his defeat came ab- solutely from the wide-tire association which wanted narrow tires. It was my conviction that association went into politics in every ward in this city where it thought it had influence. You find that after four years the Council weakened its ordinance. Again, a campaign for the position of alderman is not the most pleasant way of spend- ing three or four weeks. Men in these wards who had to climb three pairs of stairs, in house after house, in making a house to house canvass did not enjoy it. Men do not care to go out night after night, and night after night, trying to canvass their ward, any more than they are com- pelled to. Frequently you find the case of a man in the Council who does not like campaign work going out after his two years in the council. He retires rather than go through another campaign. In two years a man may not have done enough work to have his good recognized; in two years he may not do enough bad to have his bad recognized by the general public. The special interests with their special agents know all about it and are active | every two years. Let us not weaken December 11 247 1906 our hold upon the men in making them do what is right, but let us stand up together and strengthen the man who says he will do his best and is doing his best for the city. MR. HILL: It appears to me that every argument advanced here for a four years term for the aldermen, ap- plies with equal force to members of Congress and members of the Legisla- ture. It may be correct — I suppose that members of Congress and mem- bers of the Legislature should not be considered any different than aider- men. I do not suppose an alderman is made of any finer fibre than the other. But I favor the two years’ term for another reason, and it is along gen- eral lines. The recommendation of this Convention to the State Legislature will have a great deal of force un- doubtedly. But after we get to the Legislature we are then obliged to go over the whole grounds again and convince those who will not have the opportunity to work here, — country members who are affected by other in- terests and other views. It will be quite difficult for us to get them to agree upon all points. For that reason it seems to me that we should proceed along conservative lines. We should not put into this recommendation any- thing of a radical nature that may endanger the bill before the Legisla- ture, or may endanger it when it comes to a referendum vote to the people of Chicago. I speak generally now, not particularly of this one point, al- though it emphasizes what I wish to say. I believe our custom of two years’ term for aldermen should be considered. If we put a lot of radical things in this bill — and by radical I mean things that may be ahead of the people — for that which may be radical this year may be conservative next year in view of the advance or the experience we may have. It would be desirable perhaps from a theoreti- cal standpoint, and these things would be desirable as we know them, per- haps, but they may be ahead of the people, and when we go down to the Legislature we may find opposition and we may have great difficulty in se- curing the real things that we want there in view of the radical things that we propose; and it is the ordin- ary things that we must try for. We should not try to pass legislation if it is of a radical nature. On many of those things in the bill we must go before the people of the City of Chicago and again canvass the sub- ject, and if there is nothing in the charter that will arouse a whole class of people against another, we shall find things easier. Otherwise, we shall have to convince them, and all that we have gone through of this trouble and ex- pense may be in vain for our pro- posals may be rejected by the people of Chicago. Now, my own view on this whole question is that this whole charter from one end to the other should be upon conservative lines. It is not right that we should stuff this charter with things that are so far ahead of the people that the members of the Legislature you send down to Springfield have got to take the bur- den upon themselves. It is not right for you to put those things into this charter so that when we come up be- fore the people of Chicago we have on one side arrayed against us a great class because it includes something that class does not believe in; be- cause it adopts something radical in its nature. By that means you will have two classes arrayed against us and against the whole charter. Now, this is not the last opportunity the people of Chicago will get to fix this charter as it should be. If we confine ourselves to conservative lines and produce a charter on general lines with the great advantages that we de- sire at this campaign of education — as December 11 248 1906 to finance, and education, and con- solidation, etc.; if we follow the things that are necessary and that the people do want, when we come to pass it through the Legislature, this charter will represent the vote of the people of Chicago. Then, each step thereafter may be taken up of itself by the refer- endum vote and the little ballot by which it may be submitted to the people of Chicago. Thus, they can act on them intelligently. But when class is arrayed against class, you endanger the whole bill. I feel earnestly in this matter that we should follow conserva- tive lines on the whole bill. There are other subjects coming up that the gen- tlemen here sincerely hope to see put into this charter; and perhaps some of them feel as earnestly as they do that theoretically they should be there; and ultimately they may be in the charter, but I do not think it is wise to put them in at this time. I think we should take step by step and pro- ceed slowly and carefully; that we should test out each step and not ham- per the whole charter in the way I have suggested. In some ways we may be ahead of the people, and by so being we shall array class against class. Now, many of us here have received letters — I have received one in regard to the home rule proposition in which one class of people want Chicago to have extreme home rule. They have decided on the question of Sunday closing and saloon licenses and so forth. On the other hand you have another class of people just as earnestly requesting that there shall be put into this char- ter something which will prevent hav- ing prohibition districts in the city. As the matter now stands, we should take our steps one by one. There is a matter which I think we should be a little careful about. We should pro- ceed carefully and cautiously in those matters and along conservative lines, making as few changes as possible and have the consent of the people and follow up, step by step, as sentiment grows up in favor of it, and in time we will have things right. But if you put them all in one omnibus bill it will be a great disadvantage and you will array class against class. I do not say these measures should not be adopted, but they should not be put in one bill at the present time to put up before the people of Chicago. One class will object to it on one ground and another class will object to it on a totally different ground and vote against it; and a third class will ob- ject to it on a third ground until we shall have lost our whole bill and we shall not have got the great advan- tages we desire and we were called together particularly for. That is, im- provement in the taxing, better finance, and educational matters, and these things that are desired to have im- proved. Therefore, I think the two years’ term is sufficient. The people are accustomed to it and they will vote for it, and we will not have class arrayed against class because we have gone ahead of the people and what they are accustomed to. MR. SMULSKI: No doubt this charter will give great powers to the council, therefore, the election and manner of the election, and tenure of office of the members of the city coun- cil is a very important one. I don’t believe that a change of tenure of office of an alderman from two to four years is such a radical change. Furthermore, I don’t believe we should leave anything in this matter to spec- ulation or conjecture. Now, it has been stated by Mr. Linehan that we always elect, re-elect from 60 to 80 per cent, of the same men to the council. That is only a speculation. We have done it in the past, we may do it in the future, but a time may come when, through a December 11 249 1906 general sweep, an entirely new mem- bership of the city council might come in at one time, and the City of Chicago be left, I believe, in a very serious predicament, if all the mem- bers of this council were new men. Of course you say it would not hap- pen, but that is only speculation; it may happen. And we have no right to put anything into this proposed charter that will make a condition of that kind possible; and we should have members of the city council elected at two different times; make the term four years and elect two aldermen, say the odd numbers of the wards at one time, and the even numbers at an- other; but you must not permit a con- dition to exist where all the members of the city council at one time can be new members. I believe that the term of office of an alderman should be four years. It has been very properly stated that a man who becomes a member of the city council for the first time is not able to cope with the different prob- lems confronting the city council, and in the City Hall for the first two years. He learns what the duties of an alderman are in the first year and the second year, and after he has been here for two years he is able to cope with the problems that come before this council; and it is folly to say that a man will be re-elected just because he is a good alderman, or that he will be defeated because he is a bad aider- man. We know, from experience, that good men have been defeated for re- election, and that bad men have been returned time and time, irrespective of the term of office to which they have been elected. I believe that it is time now to change the term of office of the aider- men, and, as long as the mayor's term is now going to be four years — because that is the law now — we ought to put a provision into this charter that will provide that the term of office of al- dermen be the same as that for mayor. The council is going to be the body that is going to govern the city, and the mayor is simply going to be a member of that council, and it should be, as has been stated before, a council- governed city, and you must not make the office of aldermen less important than that of the mayor. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the councilmen of Chicago should be elect- ed for four years. MR. SWIFT: Mr. Chairman, I take decided issue with the proposition that this is a council-governed city. It is not a council-governed city. MR, SMULSKI: It should be. MR. SWIFT: No, it should not be. It is an officially-governed city; it is an administration-governed city. I know, in the history of a mayor of the City of Chicago, who, during the course of two years vetoed approximately 300 orders and ordinances passed by the city council. Of that approximate 300, less than 1, or perhaps 1 per cent, of his vetoes were over-ridden by the council. Now, that is a fact. , I know, in the history of one mayor of the City of Chicago, where one Monday night, upon a 4-cent fare or- dinance that was passed by the city council, some 60 to 8, on the succeed- ing Monday night the veto of the mayor was sustained by 60 to 8. Is it a council-governed city? MR. ROSENTHAL: What year was that? MR. SWIFT: It was the year 1896- 1897. MR, ROSENTHAL: That is a big difference. MR. SWIFT: Is it a council-govern- ed city? Then you don't know what you are talking about, for I was the mayor, and I do know what I am talking about. I tell you, gentlemen, this thing of trying to disassociate the administrative and the legislative December 11 250 1906 body is all wrong. It is the intent of the people to elect an administra- tion, and that means all that it im- plies: an administration-governed city. We speak of a mayor's administra- tion by what was done dur- ing his administration; by what was done by the council as well as by the actions of the mayor. Very often, the people of whom we hear so much, the people primarily get just such a city government as they de- sire. The people are selfish, the people are arrayed against the people. The alderman stands between the two. A proposition comes into the council, to one of them who has not any more than taken his seat, and he offers it until his fellow alderman, at the suggestion of the people, moves that that be laid upon the table or be deferred, or speaks against it. This thing of attempting to differ- entiate, to disassociate the administra- tion from the council, is all wrong; it should be one harmonious whole; that was the intent of the people. As I said before, when they elect an ad- ministration, they elect council and they elect a mayor, and they elect the mayor to select the proper men for the heads of the departments. True, the council legislates. Who carries out this legislation? — the men appointed by the mayor. The mayor is accountable to the people. I don't know that there is much about the term of two or four years. My preference would be four years, on account of reasons advanced upon this floor, by members of this Convention, as to the difficulty that confronts a man, a candidate who had been selected by the people. The cry has gone up all over this city — you and I have heard it — that the people have very little to do in the selection of their officials; that the officials are selected by a coterie of politicians, and that they have, perhaps, a choice of two evils, the lesser of the two. I don't know that I am in great sym- pathy with those constant reiterations of what the people want. What the people do want, or the majority of the people, is honest legislators and honest mayors, and honest heads of depart- ments. That is what they want, and that is what they will get; and they will get it better when they have a man, in my estimation, the mayor se- lected for the term of four years, than if he is selected for the term of two. This is a great corporation. I don't care how intelligent, how successful a man may have been in the conduct of his business affairs, but knows little or nothing about this great cosmopolitan .city, that has not rubbed up against the different people. There is no other city on this globe as cosmopoli- tan as Chicago. He may have been very successful in the conduct of his special affairs; he may have been adept as a specialist in his busi- ness affairs; he may have been selected on account of his great success as a specialist in his business affairs, and make a most abject failure in his conduct of the office of mayor. Why? Because it is entirely new to him. Not, by any means, that we should confine our selection to the office of mayor to someone who has held office, but the chief argument in my mind to the lengthening of the office to four years is, it may be that that man, with his superior knowledge, with the fact that he has been a success in his own special business affairs, may adapt himself by contact with the mem- bers of the council, and with the people of this city, so that, in time, he may become an acceptable mayor. And he cannot do it in any other way than by coming in contact with the practical workings of this city govern- ment, I don't care who he is nor how successful h„e may have been in his own business affairs. He must be a man accustomed to rub up against the December 11 251 1906 people, to learn the wants of the people and to learn that which is to the best interest of the people, and he can learn it only by being educated in the office, to the duties of the office, and the requirements of the office. Now, then, it has been stated on the floor here ME. ROSENTHAL: May I ask you a question? MR. SWIFT: Certainly. MR. ROSENTHAL: I suppose you are speaking in favor of the two-year term? MR. SWIFT: No, sir, I am not. I am speaking in favor of the four-year term. MR. ROSENTHAL: That is all. MR. SWIFT: Now, as has been stated on the floor what the nomina- tion of the candidate means. I have been surprised to find, — of course I have been out of politics for ten years, — I am a hay-seed, I am rusty, — I have been surprised to hear on this floor that it costs from ten to twelve hun- dred dollars for every canvass an al- derman makes! Why? Answer why? Who takes it? Where does it go? In olden times, twenty-five dollars to fifty dollars would be quite an expense to be elected alderman to the City of Chicago. Twelve hundred dollars to twenty-five hundred dollars. Who gets the money? The people! Are you edu- cating the people to the idea that a candidate for alderman must buy that office? It is wrong: absolutely wrong: absolutely wrong in principle and — if it is a fact — in fact. Is my time up? THE CHAIRMAN: No, sir; you have got two minutes yet, Mr. Swift. MR. SWIFT: I am in favor of the selection of a mayor for four-year term; I am in favor of the selection of aldermen for a four-year term. If that alderman is a man of parts; if he is of the simplest sense; if he is a man of integrity, he will attempt to do that in his four year term of office which will meet the approval of his people. If he does not do that, he knows that at the end of four years he will be — to use the common par- lance — passed up. Some men may do as much harm in two years as some other man will do in four. I am not a pessimist: I am an optimist. I am not a knocker: I am a booster. I be- lieve in the inherent honesty of our people: I am not looking for dishonest men. I am not one accustomed to call a council a “gang”; I don’t like the word: they are not a gang. There may be some members of the council who are a little off. There are some members of Congress who are a little off. There are some senators of the United States, who have the dignified office of senator of the United States, who are reputed to be a little off. As a whole, the members of the city coun- cil of Chicago will rank with any of the citizens of Chicago, if taken as a whole. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of the four-year proposition. MR. POST. When this proposition was first brought to my attention it seemed to me to involve very little of import- ance. The difference between a two years’ term and a four-year term did not seem to be of very great importance; but as this discussion has gone on, the real meaning of this extension of the term has become apparent. The object appears to me to elect representatives of the people of the city as far away from the people of the city as possible, and have them as high above the people of the city as possible and keep them so as long as possible. In other words this is a step in the direction of creating a council oligarchy, instead of being a question between the two years and the four years. We are told that these rep- resentatives are not the servants of the people, and are not to be the servants of the people, that they are to be the governors of the people, the masters of December 11 252 1906 the people, and this difference between four years and two years, in this differ- ence we find the whole question of pop- ularity and the centralization involved. Mr. Eosenthal tells us this is a repre- sentative and not a democratic govern- ment. I don’t know where he gets his authority. The only authoritative docu- ment I know of that indicates the char- acter of the government of the United States describes them as being republi- can in form. Governments are usually maintained in 'form republican. It is per- fectly well known there are two different types of republican government; there is the democratic form of republican gov- ernment, and there is the republican form of republican government. It is true that for the most part our republican form of government has been of the rep- resentative type, the old New England town meeting democratic type, we are bringing in more and more in harmony with the democratic type in our referen- dum and initiative in different parts, of the country; but it is true that on the whole- our republican form of govern- ment has been of the representative type and representative of what? Who are these aldermen representing? Shall they represent the democratic form of govern- ment, or who shall they represent? Shall they represent the colleges or the college graduates, the social clubs of distinction and luxury, or shall the alderman repre- sent the people as a whole? In other words, are we in our repre- sentative form of government maintain- ing a mechanism that brings into form of law the sentiment of the people, the popular sentiment, or is it our purpose to raise a body which shall tell the people what they want or at any rate what they must have? Thus, the legislative body proposed may thus put into the form of law for local government the sentiment of the people, not of any particular class, and I can hardly consider it a hardship for a man who has been elected by the people that he shall reasonably, fre- quently, be sent to the people to be re- turned by the people; if he has been a good man I cannot see why it would be any hardship for him to be returned to the people for their approval of his acts. It may be a hardship when one feature of the legislative body is pitted against some popular sentiment, or some private interest, that the popular sentiment or the private interest is strong enough to defeat him from coming back again, but be that as it may, if we are to have rep- resentative government, it is right that men should go back to the people, be he right or be he wrong, in the course of a certain length of time, be he right or be he wrong in the course he has taken, and ask them to endorse him. I do not mean to say with some of the gentlemen here that the people will always return good men. They will not. There are some people that will vote for bad men, and we will not always have the best men, the most efficient men or the best men morally, returned to the council; we will not always have them. But we always will have an opportunity to return to the council the men who have proved themselves to their constituencies as rep- resenting popular sentiment, as represent- ing the popular sentiment of their con- stituencies; as Mr. Swift says, the peo- ple always are the rulers, they rule every- where, in Illinois and in Russia, and in Chicago; and the men of this city are the men to rule, and so we want it to be that the people may easily rule, not so that it shall be difficult for the peo- ple to rule. When there is a mechanism provided that makes it difficult for the people to rule, we have revolutions; when the people cannot express themselves through the referendum or by the elec- tions the history is that they rise and revolt, and those things lead to the revo- lutions. If you make your mechanism so that the people can express their senti- ments of law with the greatest possible ease you will avoid riots, you will avoid revolutions, you will avoid upheavals, December 11 253 1906 because the people have a method of ex- I pression. I believe that between two years and four years, with all that is involved in that question, I believe that those who understand the question will consider it again, and will consider this question of very little importance, but I think that it is a matter of great deal im- portance, for when we have taken this first step, it is in the direction of creating a council which shall be not the ser- vants of the people of Chicago nor the masters of the people of Chicago. ME. FISHEK: It has been a very curious experience to me to listen to the different points urged by those members who have advocated the two-year term, and it has been a curious experience also to me when I find the gentlemen who voted with absolute unanimity in favor of the four-year term for mayor, are now proposing to go on and vote in favor of a two-year term for the aldermen. We have retained the veto power of the mayor of this city; we have created the mayor of this city equal to one-sixth of the body of the city council solely on | that account. You have created an office which Mr. Swift has well pointed out to you, can by the exercise of three hun- dred vetoes in a year or two years, prac- tically one per cent, he says, only over ridden — can dominate your entire city council. And yet nobody objected to that on the ground it was autocratic. The whole difficulty with this thing is that we are so apt to judge things by our own limited personal experience. We think that the thing with which we are familiar must necessarily be the right thing. Mr. Swift believes in the mayoralty form of government, because he was mayor, and because he found the difficulties of the mayor — he found that the mayor in his case could be more efficient if the mayor had more power. That is to say, he could carry out his policies as mayor more readily if there was nobody there to check him up; and, if he was fortu- nate enough to have a city council which would vote 60 to 8 against him one night and 60 to 8 in favor of him the next night, he would only reverse 30 then — with 300 vetoes in the time he states, about one per cent, as I recall about 300 vetoes, why I think he didn ’t have a great deal of difficulty with the coun- cils of those days so far as he was con- cerned. Now, the gentlemen on the other side, Mr. Linehan, representing a radically different opinion, the other class of al- dermen retained two years — wants the aldermen retained for two years instead of four years; but Mr. Linehan voted in favor of the four-year term for mayor, and was in favor of the retention of the veto power, and proposes to put a man in office who may repeat what Mr. Swift did. Now, Mr. Linehan has referred to the mayor, and I take it that on that point that no member of the Convention knows more about it than we do, we have had expressions of opinion as to how they feel on the question of the four- year term with the veto power, and not many gentlemen are against that propo- sition, but some of them are now advo- cating this two-year term for the coun- cilmen, they would have them here for two years, which would cause them to seek re-election every two years. Now, with a mayor with such power, with such power in the mayor as has been referred to by Mr. Swift, would he not control the appointment of the heads of executive departments, and so for the purpose of controlling the affairs of the nominees of the different wards, he would have great influence; we would have our aldermen candidates for the city council dominated to a large extent by the mayor. Now, we have had the same condition with regard to aldermen in this city for a good many years past; and I tell you that the mayors of this city had in many re- spects in this city exercised a great and controlling influence in the election and in the nominations of aldermen in their December 11 254 1906 wards; and that is one reason — take the last election, without regard to the re- sult of the election, take the democratic nominees for the different offices, were there not a great many democratic nomi- nees whose nominations were under the influences of the administration? Who would be in favor of such a council as has been advocated here, who would be in favor of having the city council at the mercy of that man’s su- perior power, such as Mr. Swift has re- ferred to? Personally, I don’t believe in it. I believe thoroughly in the sort of thing that he does not believe in, namely in the council of many as a fundamental government. I believe as he has said that the mayor should have been selected by this Convention, and put into the char- ter as an executive officer ; then you could elect him for four years and pay no attention to him; if he has control of your legislative body the council could change it and meet the exigencies. The sort of government that Mr. Swift has outlined is one symmetrical, harmoni- ous organization. I do not believe in sub- ordinating the legislative to the executive. There are a great many other things coming up, as has been said by Mr. Hill, and we are going to vote, I assume upon those matters; we are going to vote upon the question of a two-year term for mayor and also on the question of the adoption of certain principles in regard to the referendum and the initiative and other matters of importance, upon the control of public utilities and matters of that sort. Now, if you are going to exercise popular control over matters of that kind, if you are going to have the principle of the referendum and the in- itiative body and all of those things, you will have to give your council power, or you are going to absolutely emasculate it and render it inefficient for anything. MR. POST : May I ask a question ? THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly. MR. FISHER : Yes, sir. MR. POST : May we rely upon get- ting a referendum in the case we have a four-year term for aldermen ? That would very materially affect my vote one way or the other. MR. FISHER: Well, of course, I don ’t know, that remains to be seen. When we get to the adoption of the draft of the charter we are going to have an opportunity to disagree with the draft if we want to; and I for my part, speak- ing for myself, I am not making up my mind to everything today as to just how I shall vote on any of these propositions. For my own part I stand ready to be convinced by any argument that will ap- peal to reason, by any member of this Convention, upon any question that I have taken an opposite position on. I presume other members of this Conven- tion feel the same way. But we have to have some theory of a government which is to be symmetrical and harmonious, as Mayor Swift has said : if that is true, shall you put the city council under the control and domina- tion of your mayor? One more thing I want to say. I do not understand Mr. Hill’s allusion as to the question of conservatism. I didn’t quite get his point of view as to what constitutes conservatism. He says you must not put the members of the legisla- ture up against knocking out the four- year term for mayor and then pay no at- tention to what the press and people of Chicago want you to do. Does he think it is conservative not to give what the press and people of Chicago want in the way of a charter? What are the mem- bers of the legislature going to do about rejecting the four-year term if the peo- ple of Chicago want a mayor for a four- year term? Who are these classes he wants us to rub against on this propo- sition? His proposition is that we re- tain what we have because it is conserva- tive and we are going to retain the four- year term for mayor because we have it. Now, we have not elected any four-year term mayor as yet. We have a law December 11 255 1906 which has just gone into effect whereby we probably will have an election in the near future when we will elect a four- year term mayor. But we have not done it yet. Mr. Hill says it is conservative to do it, to do that which we have not as yet done, and that is why it would not be conservative to do something else, that we shall elect a four-year term mayor. One more thing which I would like to call the attention of the Convention to and that is that the bill which went to the legislature creating a four-year term for mayor went from the city council, and it went with the recommendation or provision for a four-year term for aider- men, and there was no popular dissent. I venture to say there was not — I did not see any and I read the papers care- fully, for it was my business at that time particularly to pay attention to it — I did not see any newspaper of the city of Chicago, I did not see in any newspaper a single editorial comment which was against the proposition of a four-year term for aldermen. All of them were in favor of the four-year term for mayor and for the four-year term for aider- men, and I have yet to hear of a single popular assembly of any kind raising its voice in opposition to that proposition. It went down to Springfield, and it has been a mystery to me and a great many other people why the members of the legislature at Springfield struck out the four-year term for aldermen, and the only explanation I have been able to get, and I have been given this explanation by certain members of the legislature was that when they commenced to con- sider the changes which went into the method of electing men, when they con- sidered all those matters, it was over- ruled and put out. Now, you have presented to you an in- strument which should be able to bring about a harmonious whole, and you are going to provide for taking care of every difficulty that may present itself. MR. DEVER: This is the second or third time I have found it impossible for me to express my opinion upon the sub- jects considered. I agree with some of the things Mr. Fisher has said. I have felt that the mayor and the aldermen ought to be elected for the same term of office and at the same time. I favored that, and I favor it yet for the reason that I do not see, I do not know of any reason why the mayor should have a controlling influence over the political destinies of the servants of this city and the aldermen who represent it from time to time. If you have a term of four years for the mayor and two years for the aider- men you are going to make the mayor more powerful, you will give the mayor absolute control in many of the wards of this city, and this control he will have whether the mayor be elected under a republican or democratic party, and of necessity he will have to go back again to the people. I think it is a mistake for the council to have a term of one length, for the aldermen to have one term and another for the mayor. And that leads up to the first remark I made, it seems to me that we had ought to have voted in some different form on this matter than we did; it seems to me it would have been better to have first voted upon the question of whether we favored the same term of office for mayor and for aldermen and the same tenure of office, then we could have gotten a clear expression from the Convention one way or the other. If you vote << aye M then we could get an intelligent vote on the question of what the term should be, and if our legislative procedure should take that form, I would be very glad if we could do that. Now, it would be very difficult not to have a two-year term for the office of mayor and aldermen alike. I think that we ought in municipal elections, which is a matter of local in- terest, we should turn to the people as often as we can. I think it is healthy, I think it is a healthy thing for the com- December 11 256 1906 inunity itself, to have political discussion rife in the community. I think it is a healthy thing to call attention over and over again to these things, to call the attention of the people to the things that touch as closely as municipal affairs. For that reason and other reasons that have not been touched upon here I favor a reasonably short term for the aldermen and the mayor, too. It has been said it was necessary that we should give the mayor a chance to learn the duties of his office, and by practical experience he became during the last two years of his term a better man and a more efficient public official. It has been said that that can only be done or can be best done if you make him a four-year term mayor. The theory and argument urged in support of that is that the first two years would be more or less of an ap- prenticeship in the office of mayor. I don’t think that is a very sound argu- ment. I don’t see any reason why that same argument does not apply to the two-year term, only in less degree per- haps. But the answer to that argument is, I think that it is an answer that cannot very well be reasoned away — is if a man is good he can show it during his first term of office, and if he has been a good mayor for two years, or touch- ing the proposition that Mr. Post spoke about, that of representative govern- ment — if he has represented the will of the city, the will of the people of the city of Chicago during his first two years of office, there is no sound reason why he cannot be returned to office for two years more. That is true of the aider- men. Now, what applies to one applies to the other. If he has been a good alderman for two years, he can be re- elected and if he has been a poor aider- man he can be defeated. There is nothing in this long term idea. Most of the aldermen have not been in favor of the four-year term. We have had experiences in this city where the mayor himself was a worse public official than any alderman that ever sat in the city council. If that is true, four years is too long for a man to sit in the mayor ’s chair, and the people would have an opportunity to get rid of him at the end of two years. See what the men of that type can do. Take for instance, the case of — take for instance as they are now in this city be- fore the city council, we have before the city council today the question of the franchises of great corporations, and the question of the great public utilities of this city, the telephone matters and the electric light matters and the traction company matters are here; and we have the cold storage matters and the stock yards matters and different propositions of that kind. Now, if we had at the helm a mayor such as Mr. Rosenthal has described, if we had that type of a mayor sitting in the mayor’s chair, why at the end of his two years ’ term, would he not sign every one of those grants, if that was correct, and thus make it per- sonally profitable for him to give these franchises of from twenty years to fifty years? Are the people to be tied up and at the mercy of these great public utility corporations? That is the greatest dan- ger in connection with the long term idea. I think it would be far better to elect the officials frequently, and while it might be more expensive so to do I think we can better afford to do it, that is, we can better afford to leave the in- terests of the people of this city to the people than to have at the head of the city such a man as Mr. Rosenthal re- ferred to. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll on Mr. Linehan ’s sub- stitute for Mr. McCormick ’s motion. MR. McCORMICK: I would like to have the Secretary state the two motions. There has been so much discussion I do not believe all the members of the Con- vention will know just what they are voting on. December 11 257 1906 THE CHAIRMAN: If the gentle- man who made the motion will divide the question, the Chair will do so. MR. McCORMICK: No, I don’t mean that. I wish it to be re-stated. I would like to have my motion stated and then Mr. Linehan ’s substitute. THE CHAIRMAN: Will the Secre- tary state Mr. McCormick’s motion and then Mr. Linehan ’s substitute ? THE SECRETARY: Mr. McCor- mick’s motion is printed at page 231, No. 4, “The term of office of aldermen shall be four years. ’ ’ Mr. Linehan ’s motion is that the aldermen be elected for two years, and that all of the aider- men be elected at the same time. MR. MACMILLAN: Before the roll is called I would like to ask for a divi- sion of Mr. Linehan ’s motion. I think it is susceptible of a division, and that we might vote more clearly upon it if it were divided. MR. DEYER: I second the motion. THE CHAIRMAN: It is moved and seconded that Mr. Linehan ’s motion be divided. All those in favor say “aye.” Those opposed “ no. ” It is so ordered. The motion prevailed. THE CHAIRMAN: The first vote will be, shall aldermen be elected for two years and upon that the Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Burke, Church, Dever, Guerin, Hill, Kittleman, Linehan, McKinley, Pen- darvis, Rainey, Shanahan, Vopicka, Wal- ker— 13. Nays — Beebe, Bennett, Brown, Carey, Clettenberg, Dixon, G. W] 1 . ; Erickson, Fisher, Hunter, Jones, MacMillan, Mc- Cormick, Merriam, O’Donnell, Oehne, Owens, Paullin, Robins, Rosenthal, Shep- ard, Smulski, Snow, Swift, Taylor, Wer- no, Wilkins, Young — 27. MR. DEVER: In the hope that I may get a chance before the Convention ad- journs officially for a two-year term for mayor, I vote “aye.” MR. PENDARVIS: I think, perhaps, enough has been said on the proposition. At least the discussion has benefited me to the extent that THE CHAIRMAN: Speak a little louder, Mr. Pendarvis, so that we may all hear you, so that the reporter will hear you. (During roll call). MR, PENDARVIS: It has benefited me to the extent of educating me either up or down on the position that Aider- man Dever has just taken. It would seem to me almost impossible to get this question into such shape that one could accurately vote his sentiment; but after listening to the extended discussion I have reached the point where I prefer to vote for a two-year term for mayor rather than a four-year term for aider- men. If we should look at this matter from the standpoint of councilmen, if I should look at it from the position of a member of the lower house of the General Assembly of Illinois, I should say that a four-year term was probably prefera- ble; but I do not believe it would take me very long to make up my mind on that, but, in viewing the point from the position of the citizen I think we would be apt to reach a different view. In comparing the house and senate at Springfield, I am not ready to say that we reach better results from the stand- point of the people by electing senators every four years than w T e do by electing the members of the lower house for two years. It is generally acknowledged that the position of senator is much preferable for the length of the term from the stand- point of the office, but from the stand- point of the people, I do not believe you would get the majority of people to say that it is preferable. Now, I think that argument is applicable to a certain ex- tent to the position of alderman. And another difficulty confronts us, confronts me as I try to make up my mind to vote for the four-year term for aldermen, and that was referred to in the remarks of Mr. Smulski. He says that we do not want all the council to go out December 11 258 1906 at one time, and therefore there should be elected one-half of the council at one time and the other half at another time. That necessarily means every two years in one-half of the wards of this city you are going to have an election and at the same time you would not be hav- ing an election for alderman in the other half, and I can readily see why, or I can readily see where such pro- cedure as that would result in, I fear, a very bad situation, especially if it should be found that some local issue presents itself such as we had at the recent election of mayor, where opposi- tion can be concentrated against an al- derman, and possibly voters can be trans- ferred from one ward to another where no election is taking place. It has been almost impossible for me to view this question from any point of view where some such objection as that was not raised. I therefore think that I must vote for the two-year term, and I hope I shall have the privilege of voting for the two-year term for mayor. I vote ‘ ‘ aye. ’ ’ MR. SHANAHAN: I want to explain my vote. I was a member of the mu- nicipal legislature that made this report. The committee was almost unanimous on the vote that the term of the mayor should be four years. I voted in the committee — for tw T o years — I voted in the committee on that proposition, and while I am inclined to the four-year term for aldermen, I shall support the recommendation, and vote for two years. I vote “aye. ” MR. WERNO: Mr. Chairman, I wish to explain my vote. I favor the four- year term, not the two-year term — for the reason that I believe we will get more good men to run for the office of al- derman if you make the term four years, than you will if you have the term only two years; and, I take it, that is really the fundamental reason for offering this change. The citizens of Chicago want honest and efficient councilors, and I be- lieve that we can get a better council, from the better citizens, by making the term four years, than it seems to me we will otherwise. I am of the opinion that we should get a better council by having the four-year term. Therefore, I vote “no. ” MR. O’DONNELL: Mr. Chairman, I desire to change my vote vote from “aye” to “no.” THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. O’Donnell changes his vote from ‘ 1 aye ” to “ no. ’ ’ THE SECRETARY: O’Donnell, no. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon Mr. Line- lian’s motion to substitute two-year term for three years, the ayes are 13, and the noes are 27. The motion is lost. MR. O’DONNELL: I wish to give notice that I shall move to reconsider the vote by which this was passed at the next meeting of the Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: The record will so show. Before the second part of Mr. Linehan’s motion is taken up, it will be advisable to put Mr. McCormick’s mo- tion, fixing it at four years. All who are in favor of it signify in the usual way. Those opposed? Do you want a roll call? A MEMBER : No. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is carried. MR. MACMILLAN : As I under- stood it, Mr. Linehan’s motion was di- vided. What becomes of the second part? THE CHAIRMAN: The second part will be taken up now. The next matter is the second part of Mr. Linehan’s mo- tion that all aldermen should be elected at the same time. MR. DEYER: Mr. Chairman, do I understand that you wish to have it the same time that the mayor is elected? MR. SNOW: It should show in the motion that the intention is to elect the aldermen at the same time the mayor is elected; that is the intention of the motion. THE CHAIRMAN: There is nothing in the proposition that suggested that, December 11 259 1906 but the committee report provided for a two years’ term of aldermen, and that they should be elected at the same time. Now, the Convention having voted for a four years’ term, the question before the Convention is whether you want to elect all the four-year aldermen at the same time as the mayor. ME. SNOW : I move to amend the motion as it stands, by providing that the aldermen should be elected at the same time that the mayor is elected. THE CHAIBMAN: All of them? ME. SNOW: All of them. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion. It has been seconded that all the aldermen be elected at the same time the mayor is elected. ME. BTJBKE: I desire to offer an amendment to the amendment. THE CHAIBMAN: The Secretary will read the amendment. THE SECEETAEY: By Mr. Burke: The city shall be divided into seventy wards, each of which shall elect one al- dermen, whose term of office shall be four years. The aldermen elected in the year 1908, in wards bearing odd numbers, shall vacate their offices at the end of two years, and those elected in wards bearing even numbers at the end of four year, and vacancies occurring by expira- tion of term shall be filled by election of aldermen for a full term. THE CHAIBMAN : Gentlemen, you have heard the substitute for Alderman Snow ’s motion. ME. SNOW: The mover of the motion may desire to be heard on that. THE CHAIBMAN: Mr. Burke, do you desire to further discuss the matter? ME. BUEKE: Mr. Chairman, I had two amendments there; I would like to withdraw the amendment which I just offered and which has just been read. ME. SNOW : I thought you would think better of it. THE CHAIRMAN: There is no ob- jection, and Mr. Burke’s amendment will be withdrawn and this one read. THE SECEETAEY: By Mr. Burke: The city shall be divided into seventy wards, each of which shall elect one al- derman whose term of office shall be two years. The aldermen elected in the year 1908 in wards bearing odd numbers shall vacate their offices at the end of one year, and those elected in wards bearing even numbers at the end of two years, and vacancies occurring by expiration of term shall be filled by election of aider- men for a full term. MR. ROSENTHAL: I arise to a point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal. MR. ROSENTHAL: I understand that we have just voted for a four-year term, and that has been adopted. We cannot now introduce a motion to make it two years. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is un- der the impression that this is an in- direct method of securing a second vote on the same proposition, and, therefore, the Chair rules it out of order. MR. SNOW : I presume Mr. Burke can make his motion, so far as it af- fects the election of the aldermen, if he desires. THE CHAIRMAjn: That would be the proper motion before the meeting now. Does Mr. Burke desire to divide his motion? MR. BURKE: I did not quite under- stand the original motion, or, rather, the motion of Mr. McCormick; but, upon the question of dividing the aldermen is what I intended to bring before the Conven- tion; or, rather, dividing the election of the council so that if it is — and I take it now that it is — the sense of this Con- vention that the aldermen be elected for four years. This charter reaching Springfield, and if it passes at all will pass in time for the people of Chicago to vote and adopt it this year, so that the aldermen — next year, I mean — so that the aldermen to be elected would be elected in the year of 1908. Their term of office would vacate December 11 260 1906 and expire in two years; and every two years thereafter, the term of office to be four years, so that the entire council would not be vacated after four years, and the work of the council in the pre- ceding months prior to the election go for naught. I feel that we ought to maintain — I feel that we ought to have a sufficient number in the council who are familiar with the committee work, — who are fa- miliar with the proceedings of the council, — so that every two years we elect half the council for four years. MR. JONES: I rise to a point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jones. MR. JONES: The point is that Mr. Burke’s amendment is out of order, be- cause there are two amendments before the house. Mr. McCormick’s was the original order, and Mr. Linehan made an amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: In order to bring this matter clearly before the house — in order that the house may have a clear vote upon the method of electing aldermen, the Chair has not ruled that any of these amendments are out of order. One amendment of Mr. Burke has been ruled out of order. Do you wish to reintroduce the first? MR. BURKE: The first amendment, the one I have spoken to? THE CHAIRMAN: Let the first amendment be re-read. The Secretary re-read Mr. Burke’s first amendment. MR. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, is not that the amendment which the Chair ruled out of order on the point raised by Mr. Rosenthal? THE CHAIRMAN: What is that? MR. SNOW: Isn’t that the amend- ment which the Chair ruled out of or- der on the point raised by Mr. Rosen- thal? THE CHAIRMAN: No. The amend- ment that was ruled out of order was one which fixed the term at two years. This follows the last resolution adopt- ed, but fixes the time and method of the election of the four-year aldermen, and therefore is proper. MR. SNOW: I desire the floor just a moment. MR. SHEPARD: I desire to raise a point of order. This resolution provides for the number of wards in the City of Chicago, that has already been dis- posed of. THE CHAIRMAN: Precisely. MR. SHEPARD: It provides for the length of the term of office. THE CHAIRMAN: That has already been provided for. MR. SHEPARD: My point of order is THE CHAIRMAN: So really is re- affirming work that the Convention has already done. MR. SHEPARD: The point is, that, if we vote now on some part of that resolution, and it is not defeated, we will ostensibly be voting “No” on things that have been already been adopted by this Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: Then the gen- tleman’s motion should be to divide the proposition. If the Convention de- sires the proposition divided, it will be divided. MR. SHANAHAN: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid we are getting into detail by voting on that proposition of Mr. Burke ’s. THE CHAIRMAN: What? MR. SHANAHAN: I am afraid we are getting into detail by voting on that proposition submitted by Mr. Burke, for this reason: There is no knowing when this charter is going to be submitted to the people, or when it is going to be adopted by the people. The very earliest that it could be pre- sented to the voters of Chicago is at the spring election of 1908. If it was then adopted, the council would have to provide for the re-districting of the City of Chicago into 70 wards, and December 11 261 1906 then call for an election. All these resolutions will have to be re-drafted, and we are trying to get the senti- ment of this Convention. I think that if you vote on the pro- position as to whether we want all the aldermen elected at one time, if we adopt that proposition, it is settled. If it is voted down, then we will have to submit some other question as to how we shall, and when we shall, elect the aldermen. MR. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, for the uprpose of clearing up the record, I presume Mr. Burke would be willing to divide his motion and give us an opportunity to vote squarely on the proposition of electing half of the al- dermen at one time, and half of the aldermen at another; and that is the only question at issue at this time. MR. BURKE: I have no objection whatever to being advised on the question, so that we can find out whether or not we shall elect all the aldermen at one time, or whether we shall divide the time and elect half, one half for two years, and the other half of all the council in four years. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection, Mr. Burke’s amendment will be withdrawn for the time being, pending a vote upon this proposition, and, until that vote is taken, the Chair will recognize no further substitutes until the primary proposition is dis- posed of. MR. BEEBE: State it. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Snow’s mo- tion is, that all the aldermen shall be elected at the same time the mayor is elected. MR. ROSENTHAL: Might I ask to have the proposition put this way, as our committee still has a motion before the house, that all the aldermen shall be elected at one time, and let us de- bate the other question, then, as to whether they shall be elected at the same time the mayor is elected, or a different time. THE CHAIRMAN: Is that satisfac- tory, Mr. Snow? MR. SNOW: I am willing to accept that. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion be- fore the house is that all the aldermen shall be elected at the same time. As many as favor that motion will signify by saying “aye”; opposed, “nay.” MR, SNOW: Roll call, please. THE CHAIRMAN: Call the roll. Yeas — Bennett, Brown, Burke, Carey, Church, Clettenberg Dever, Dixon, G. W., Erickson, Fisher, Guerin, Hill, Hunter, Jones, Kittleman, Linehan, MacMillan, McCormick, McKinley, Merriam, O ’Donnell, Oehne, Owens, Paullin, Pendarvis. Robins, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Shepard, Snow, Swift, Tay- lor, Yopicka, Werno, Young — 35. Nays — Beebe, Rainey, Smulski, Wal- ker — 4. (During roll call.) MR. DEVER: I find it difficult now to vote and express my opinion as to what ought to be done about this mat- ter. For instance, if I favor the mo- tion of Alderman Snow, first made, that is, that all of the aldermen be elected at the same time the mayor is elected: if this vote, however, carries, we won’t be able to — or if it is defeated, rather — if I could not have all the aldermen elected at the same time the mayor is, I would like to have one-half of them elected at that time. And I will state my reason now: We all know that when a mayoralty campaign, of candi- dates for mayor, they find it incum- bent upon them to insist upon the nomination of good men for aldermen. In other words, it becomes a political necessity for them in their campaigns to appeal to the people for votes; and, my experience in politics has taught me that the mayors of this city take a lively interest when they are can- didates themselves, in bringing out in December 11 262 1906 the various wards good strong candi- dates who will appeal to the people, and it becomes to their interest to do so. For that reason, I would like to vote in some way that would give, if possible, all of the aldermen election at the same time as the mayor; and, if not, half of them. I don’t know just how to do that. Will you state the proposition again? THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary state the proposition again. THE SECRETARY: That all the aldermen shall be elected at one and the same time. MR. DEVER: If that is carried, and the motion to have them all elected at the same time the mayor is, I vote 1 1 aye, ’ ’ with the right to change my mind. MR. FISHER: What is the motion? THE CHAIRMAN: If the gentle- men will attend to the business of the Convention, there will be no question about what is being done. MR. FISHER: I presume I will have a copy of that lecture in the next proceedings, and I think it ought to j be framed. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary state the question again. THE SECRETARY: That all the al- derman shall be elected at one and the same time. MR. LINEHAN: I desire to ex- plain my vote. As long as you have decided that there shall be seventy wards, and one alderman to a ward, I think it would be very unwise to di- vide the election of aldermen, because then there would be a possibility for the floating population of the wards going from one ward to the other. I might give an instance. For instance: In the first ward, they would come one year there, and one term the biggest part of that population would be there, and in the next it would be in the Vighteenth ward. And that is not only true of those wards that I have men- tioned, but of other wards, and pos- sibly some of the residence wards. I don’t care whether you vote for all aldermen at the same time that you vote for mayor, or whether you vote at two years before or after that time, but I am in favor of all the aldermen being voted for at the same time as long as there are seventy wards, and one alderman to a ward. I vote ‘ 1 aye. ’ ’ MR. RAINEY: This resolution pro- vided not only for the original elec- tion, but for subsequent elections? THE CHAIRMAN: It seems to me to be broad enough to cover that. MR. RAINEY: I vote “no.” Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I de- sire to vote “no” on this proposition, and to state my reasons. I expected there would be some discussion on this proposition, and I am surprised that there was not. It is my opinion, based upon experience, that a body of this kind should be so constituted as to insure a certain continuity of policy for the people. I believe that the j division of the aldermanic election, having a portion of them elected for two years where the term is to be four years, will operate also on the admin- istration going to the people for a cer- tain check. Therefore I vote “no.” MR. BURKE: I desire to change my vote before the roll call is an- nounced and vote “aye.” THE CHAIRMAN: On Mr. Snow’s motion that all aldermen shall be elected at the same time, the ayes are 35 and the noes 4. The motion is car- ried. MR. BURKE: I desire to give notice to have the motion reconsidered at next meeting of the Convention. MR. SHANAHAN: I just rise for a question of information. As I un- derstand it, it is not necessary to give notice to reconsider these votes. These votes are not final; they can be recon- sidered at any time? December 11 263 1906 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MR. SNOW: Now, Mr. Chairman, I desire to renew my motion now that the aldermen all be elected at the same time that the mayor is elected. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you heard the motion. All those in favor signify MR. FISHER: I move you that we now adjourn. It seems to me that we ought to consider this matter a little more carefully and ascertain just exactly how this plan of organization is coming out. I do not think we should now vote upon it. It is now five minutes to ten o’clock and we will all vote much more intelligently if we see just exactly what action we have already taken. MR. KITTLEMAN: I want to give notice that I shall move to reconsider the vote that we took making the mayor’s term four years, at the next meeting. THE CHAIRMAN: Will gentlemen remain in order until the Convention adjourns? MR. BENNETT: Before the Con- vention adjourns I want to offer a reso- lution and ask that it be printed. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the resolu- tion be read. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Ben- nett: Resolved, that the present laws relating to firemen’s pensions be re- tained and included in the charter. THE CHAIRMAN: Let that be printed. MR. ROSENTHAL: I have been re- quested to introduce a certain resolu- tion, and that resolution is lying upon your desk. I do not want to be under- stood at this time as being either in favor of or against that resolution. I think it should come before this house. THE CHAIRMAN: On whose desk, did you say? MR. ROSENTHAL: I passed it to the Secretary’s desk. THE CHAIRMAN: When will the Convention meet again? MR. SNOW: It certainly seems to me that we might as well finish up the one small matter which has been left open here tonight, as far as organiza- tion of the city council is concerned. The matter has been very thoroughly discussed, and it is a matter that is reached by my resolution, and my mo- tion has been discussed in general de- bate. I think the members of this Convention had their minds made up to it, and if we devote another session to its discussion we will simply waste time in listening to the same debate and the same discussion that we have had already. It certainly seems to me that we might act on this matter at this time. THE CHAIRMAN: Alderman Snow suggests that this last matter be acted on tonight; his motion that the aider- men shall be elected at the same time as the mayor. Mr. Fisher’s motion to adjourn is pending, and the Chair would ask Mr. Fisher to hold that mo- tion back until some announcements can be made. MR. FISHER: I am perfectly will- ing to do that; I think, however, the way we are going, we have had a viva voce on the question of the mayor, and we have had a long dis- cussion, and there are a great many questions raised, and the whole subject is more or less uncertain in the minds of the members. We feel that we want united action, and I do not see any object on earth in taking a formal vote on Mr. Snow’s motion, when a motion to reconsider will certainly be made on the whole subject matter. MR. WALKER: Is the motion to adjourn debatable? THE CHAIRMAN: Under the rules of this assembly, yes. The Chair is under the impression that perhaps, in view of the fact that there would be motions to reconsider, and the three December 11 264 1906 motions to reconsider for which notice has been given, that the matter is bound to be reopened at the next meet- ing anyway. MR. SNOW: Under the circum- stances, then, I am willing that the matter should go over, and I desire to say now that I shall not move to reconsider the motion to adjourn. I move to adjourn until Thursday night at seven-thirty. THE CHAIRMAN: One moment. The resignation of one of the mem- bers of this Convention is in the hands of the Secretary. The Secretary will read it. Chicago, Dec. 5, 1906. HON. MILTON J. FOREMAN, City Hall, City. Dear Sir: — I herewith tender my resignation as a member of the Charter Convention, as a pending case will occupy my time to such an extent that I will be unable, to attend any day sessions of the Con- vention. I regret the circumstances that com- pel my resignation, as I had looked forward with pleasure and interest to the work of the Convention. Extending to yourself and the other members of the Convention my thanks for, and hearty appreciation of cour- tesies shown,— I am, Very sincerely yours, DANIEL L. CRUICE. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cruice is engaged at a trial which takes all of his time. The mayor, who appointed him, has been apprised of his resig- nation, and he will probably have his successor appointed by the next meet- ing of the Convention. The Board of Local Improvements meets here tomorrow evening, conse- quently our meeting for that night cannot be held here. MR. SNOW: My motion is that the next meeting be held on Thursday night at seven-thirty. That is the next meeting after the one we should have had on Wednesday. THE CHAIRMAN: That is a regular meeting. We miss one meet- ing this week, but it is the last time the Board of Local Improvements will meet here. The Convention will now stand adjourned. MR, ROSENTHAL: I wish to have my resolution incorporated in the record. THE CHAIRMAN: That has al- ready been done. And the Convention adjourned to meet Thursday, December 13, 1906, at 7:30 o’clock p. m. Secretary. December 11 265 1906 MEMORANDA. These memoranda indicate the various matters adopted by the Convention. (See page 50 and succeeding pages of the proceedings. II. CONSOLIDATION. 1. The corporate authorities existing at present for the government of the park systems of Chicago shall be abol- ished and the management of the parks shall become a department of the city government. 2. The administration of the public school system of the city of Chicago and of the Public Library shall con- stitute departments of the city govern- ment. III. THE MAYOR. 1. The charter shall continue sub- stantially the provisions of the pres- ent laws regarding the qualifications and executive functions of the mayor. 2. The charter shall continue the provisions of the present laws regard- ing the relation of the mayor to the city council. Resolved, that it is the sense of this Convention that a clause be inserted in the charter designating a city official who shall act as mayor during the ab- sence or inability of the mayor. First Alternative to 2 b. The mayor shall have a right to a seat in the city council, but shall have no vote. He shall have the right to speak and present messages and intro- duce measures subject to the general rules of procedure of the city council. Second Alternative to 2: The charter shall continue the pres- ent provisions of the law regarding the relation of the mayor to the city coun- cil, except that he shall not preside at the meetings of the city council, but the city council shall elect its own presiding officer from its members. 3. The veto power of the mayor shall be as now prescribed by law. 4. The term of office of the mayor shall be four years. IV. ELECTIONS. First alternative to 1: Elective city officers shall be nominated under a sys- tem of direct primaries, with appropri- ate provision for independent nomina- tions by petition. 2. The names of all the nominees for each office shall be printed on the ballot under the title of the office for which they are candidates, in alphabeti- cal order, and the designation of the party, if any, to which they belong. The following resolution on the sub- ject of suffrage for women is still pend- ing: 3. The charter shall contain no pro- vision for conferring the right of suf- frage on women. 4. a. The election of all city offi- cers, including those for the municipal court, shall be held in the spring. Pro- vided, however, that judges of the mu- nicipal court shall be elected at a time when no offices other than judicial are to be filled. 5. Candidates and political commit- tees shall be required to make sworn statements of receipts and expenditures of any campaign for nomination or election. Y. CIVIL SERVICE. 1. All departments of the city gov- ernment shall be under an appropriate civil service law. December 11 266 1906 Alternative to 1: a. The civil service law shall apply to the department of public parks. The application of the civil service law to the department of public parks shall not operate in and of itself to dis- charge the present employees. b. The civil service law shall apply to the municipal court. The Bailiff and Chief Clerk of the Municipal Court shall be subject to re- moval by a majority of the judges of the court, after a hearing, for incompe- tency, inefficiency, malfeasance or mis- feasance in office. The reasons for such removal shall be specified in writing and shall be spread at large upon the records of the court. Section 2 of Civil Service, together with resolution printed in the proceed- ings of December 6, have been referred to the Committee on Municipal Elec- tions, Appointment and Tenure of Office, with instructions to report to the Con- vention within ten days. VI. THE CITY COUNCIL. The charter shall provide for redis- tricting the city into seventy wards, of compact and contiguous territory, and with an equitable distribution of area and population, as soon as possible after the adoption of this charter, one aider- man to be elected from each ward. The city shall thereafter be redis- tricted by the City Council every ten years after the federal census has been taken, but no more than seventy wards shall be made. 2. The compensation of aldermen shall be at the rate of thirty-five hun- dred dollars per annum. The term of office of aldermen shall be four years. The following resolution on the sub- ject of THE CITY COUNCIL is still pending: The aldermen shall be elected at the same time as the mayor. December 11 267 1906 Resolutions offered from the floor of the Convention, but not acted upon. BY ME. KOSENTHAL. As an amendment to Chapter IV. en- titled ELECTIONS. By adding the following proposition numbered 6 : 6. The only elective city officers (not including aldermen and municipal judges) shall be the Mayor and City Treasurer. The City Treasurer shall be ex-officio city collector. BY ME. BENNETT: XXII. 5. SECTION Nothing in this act shall be construed to modify, impair or affect or to confer upon the city coun- cil power to pass any ordinance modi- fying, impairing or conflicting with the provisions of Section 18 of an act en- titled “An act to provide for the an- nexation of cities, incorporated towns and villages or parts of same to cities, incorporated towns and villages ’ ’ ap- proved April 25th, 1889, or to any pro- vision of any law of Illinois relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors or creat- ing or defining criminal offenses or relat- ing to the prosecution and punishment thereof, nor shall any amendment or addition be made to the charter of the City of Chicago, except by the General Assembly, by which this section, or any part thereof shall, directly or indirectly, be abrogated, repealed or annulled. BY. ME. SHEPAED: Besolved, That in any act providing for the formation and disbursement of the police pension fund the following provision be incorporated: That the members of the police de- partment to be included in the bene- fits of such pension fund shall be as follows: The General Superintendent of Po- lice, Assistant General Superintendent of Police, Inspectors, Captains, Lieu- tenants, Sergeants, Patrolmen, Patrol Drivers, Superintendent of Horses, Su- perintendent of Construction, Superin- tendent Bureau of Identification, As- sistant Superintendent Bureau of Iden- tification, Secretary of the Police De- partment, Private Secretary to the Gen- eral Superintendent of Police, Police Custodian Stolen Property, Chief Clerk Secretary's office, Clerk in Secretary's office, Chief Clerk in Detective Bu- reau, Chief Operator, Assistant Chief Operator, Operators, Drillmaster, Chief Matron, Matrons, Feed Inspector, De- partment Printer, Vehicle Inspectors, Photographer, Assistant Photographer, Stenographers, Supply Drivers, Finger Print Expert and such other mem- bers as may hereafter be provided for by ordinance. BY ME. BENNETT: Eesolved, that the present laws re- lating to firemen's pensions be retained and included in the charter. BY MESSES WEENO AND EOSEN- THAL: Chapter 7, section 1, alternative 1. In addition to all the legislative powers now conferred upon it by the general cities and villages act and the amendments thereof, the charter shall vest in the city council the power to regulate the legal observance of the weekly day of rest, commonly called Sunday; and the sale of liquors by bona fide athletic, charitable, edu- cational, fraternal, musical and social associations, corporations and societies at social gatherings, or entertainments conducted or held by them only; and in general all powers of local legisla- tion which may under the constitution be vested in a municipality. December 11 268 1906 SPECIAL ORDERS For Week Beginning Monday, December 10. SECTION X. — Revenue, at page 53. SECTION XVII— Education, at page 56. PARAGRAPH 3.— Suffrage, at page 52. CORRECTIONS. MR. first column : “speak” instead of “come. MR. SHANAHAN: On page 101, second column: Line 22, after the word “then” add “who shall.” MR. SHEDD: On page 128, first column, second line, strike out ‘ 1 in a ” and insert therefor: “eliminating the.” Also, in the third line, after the word ‘ ‘ paper, ’ ’ insert ‘ ‘ but retaining the par- ty column.” MR. POST: On page 130, second column, fifth line from bottom* sub- stitute the word “constitutional” for the word “satisfactory.” MR. SHEPARD: On page 134, first column, last paragraph, fifth line, strike out “that is, that all municipal officers and city officers, including the municipal court judges shall be elected in the spring” and insert therefor: “that is, that all city officers shall be elected in the spring at one and the same election, except the municipal court judges.” MR. SHANAHAN: On page 159, first column, next to last line, strike out “it along” and insert “about its passage. ’ ’ MR. WERNO: On page 161, left hand column, line 25, strike out the word “has” and insert in lieu thereof the word “have.” Also on page 161, right hand column, 13th line, strike out the words “to give ’ ’ and insert in lieu thereof the words “who gives.” MR. LINEHAN: On page 162, first column, next to last line, strike out word “devoted” and insert “di- vorced.” Also same column, last line, strike out word “to” and insert “from.” Also, same page, second col- umn, first line, strike out “we are pro- posing” and insert “a proposal.” MR. POWERS: On page 166, sec- ond column, fourth, fifth and sixth lines, strike out “Well, can’t he do that without the consent of this Conven- tion?” and insert in lieu thereof “He cannot do that without the consent of this Convention . 1 ’ MR. SHANAHAN: On page 170, first colmun, fourth line, after the word “entrance” insert the following: “to the service protected by the law.” MR, PENDARYIS: Page 179, first column; strike out entire line, and in- sert in lieu thereof: “that fact we put into the,” also, same page, same column, in fourth line from bottom, insert the word “meet” for “leave.” MR. YOPICKA: Page 214, second column, twelfth line of paragraph, strike out words “a movement” and insert “an improvement.” MR. PENDARYIS: Page 226, second column, line 24, change the word “po- sition” to “provision”; also, same page, same column, line 26, change the word “of” to “by.” SHANAHAN : On page 92, Line 13, insert word PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1906 i (djirago (Ihiirtrr (Cnuurutinu Convened, December 12, 1905 Headquarters 171 WASHINGTON STREET TELEPHONE MAIN 4877 Milton J. Foreman Chairman Alexander H. Revell, . . Vice-Chairman M. L. McKinley Secretary Henry Barrett Chamberlin, Abst. Secy feVx cov. December 13 271 1906 PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Regular Meeting, Thursday, December 13, 1906 7:30 O’clock P. M., in the City Council Chamber OFFICIAL RECORD Published by authority of the Chicago Charter Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: The Convention will be in order. The Secretary will call the roll. Present — Foreman, Chairman, and Badenoch, Beebe, Beilfuss, Bennett, Brosseau, Brown, Carey, Church, Clet- • tenberg, Crilly, Dever, Dixon, G. W., 2* Eckhart, B. A.,- Eckhart, J. W., Erick- 0 son, Fisher, Graham, Guerin, Hunter, ^ Jones, Kittleman, Linehan, Lundberg, MacMillan, McCormick, McGoorty, Mc- Kinley, Merriam, O’Donnell, Owens, Paullin, Pendarvis, Rainey, Raymer, Robins, Shanahan, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Sunny, Taylor, Thompson, Vo- picka, Walker, Werno, White, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 50. Absent — Baker, Burke, Cole, Ritter, Dixon, T. J., Eidmann, Fitzpatrick, Gansbergen, Haas, Harrison, Hill, Hoyne, Lathrop, Oehne, Patterson, Post, Powers, Revell, Rinaker, Rosen- thal, Sethness, Shedd, Swift, Wilson — 24. THE CHAIRMAN: Quorum present. Are there any corrections or amend- ments to the minutes? MR. LINEHAN: I would like to have inserted in the record, at page 253, column 2, anywhere in there, in- serted the following paragraph, which was a part of Mr. Fisher’s speech and left out wholly, as follows: “Mr. Linehan, to speak plainly, is in sympathy with the present mayor, for this reason: He is willing the term of office of mayor should be four years, but objects to the aldermanic term being lengthened. I ask him if he would be of the same mind if he were opposed to the mayor, but were in sympathy with the City Council which had to seek re-election every two years?” I presume I am not giving the exact words, but that is the sense of it, just as I took it down, as close as possible. MR. FISHER: I must object to the insertion of this language as being my exact language, because, as I recall my language, that is not exactly what I stated. I think it does fairly state the sense of what was stated, but the re- mark I made was that Mr. Linehan was December 13 272 1906 in favor of the policies of the present mayor. I don’t know whether he is in favor of the present mayor or op- posed to the. present mayor, but I do understand he is in favor of the poli- cies of the present mayor. THE CHAIRMAN! Are there any further corrections or amendments? If not, the record will stand approved. THE CHAIRMAN: Will the Secre- tary please read this communication? THE SECRETARY: December 12, 1906. Hon. Milton J. Foreman, President, Chicago Charter Convention, 100 Washington Street, Chicago: My Dear Alderman: I have this day appointed Mr. Emil W. Ritter as a del- egate to the Chicago Charter Conven- tion, vice Daniel L. Cruice, resigned. Very respectfully, E. F. Dunne, Mayor. THE CHAIRMAN: . Mr. Ritter’s name should be entered in the records. MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman, should not a committee be appointed to find Mr. Ritter? THE CHAIRMAN: The matter pending at the close of the Convention the other night was MR. WERNO: I would like to move that the resolution that was offered at the last meeting, on page 267, the right- hand column, at the bottom of the col- umn, the resolution that appears to have been offered by Werno and Rosen- thal, be made a special order, and I would like to have a date fixed, and if not, I would like to have it put down as a special order among the other spe- cial orders. THE CHAIRMAN: You refer to the resolution introduced by Mr. MR. WERNO: The right-hand col- umn, bottom of page 267; that is the resolution sent in by the United So- cieties. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would sugest that that be done when we I reach the part of the proceedings to which that particularly refers. I ap- prehend that can be taken up then. MR. WERNO: We take up the pow- ers of the City Council to-night. THE CHAIRMAN: We take them up in general. MR. WERNO: How? THE CHAIRMAN: We take them up in general, and I would suggest when this is reached, if we conclude to do that, then it can be made a special order, if the Convention desires to do so. At present the matter before the Convention is the question of whether the aldermen s halCbo^ele c t e d at the same time as the mayor. I believe Al- derman Snow introduced the resolution. MR. SNOW: I move the passage of the resolution. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion. All those in favor signify by saying aye; those op- posed, no. It is carried. The Secretary will read the powers of the City Coun- cil in general. MR. WERNO: I think this is the proper time to speak about this matter with regard to having it made a special order, and I move that this be made a special order. THE CHAIRMAN: For when? MR. WERNO: Well, make it a spe- cial order for Saturday, if we meet Saturday. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion. Is there a sec- ond to it? MR. SHANAHAN: What is that? THE CHAIRMAN: Alderman Werno moves to make that a special Order for next Saturday; the motion introduced by him and Mr. Rosenthal, which is printed in the lower corner, right hand, of page 267. MR. FISHER: Should not the reso- lution offered by Mr. Bennett, on the same page, be taken up at the same time? They relate to different phases of the same general question. December 13 273 1906 THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Con- vention dispose of this motion first. MR. JONES: It seems to me the motion made by Mr. Werno should not prevail, because the section which he and Mr. Rosenthal have presented is an alternative to take the place of alternative No. 1, under Section 7, which is the subject matter we are to discuss to-night. Now, I understand that the resolution which Mr. Bennett proposes relates to an entirely different matter, and it is the power of the City Council to suggest amendments to this charter, and, as I look at it, Mr. Ben- nett’s resolution properly comes up when we consider Section 22; but Mr. Werno ’s resolution should properly come up to-night. It seems to me if we postpone the section that he refers to we would postpone everything with regard to home rule, which we are to discuss to-night. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard Mr. Werno ’s motion, that the consideration of his resolution be deferred until next Saturday. All those in favor of the motion signify by say- ing aye; those opposed, no. A VOICE: Roll call. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the roll be called. MR. WERNO: I would like to say a word in regard to this, that, in my opinion, I think the gentleman is mis- taken as to Mr. Bennett’s resolution. It is not a question of whether the City Council should suggest amendments to the charter that is involved there, but that refers to the rights of the City Council to change the law as it now stands in some of the districts which are annexed to the City of Chicago, in some districts, in Hyde Park, and other parts of the city, belonging to the City of Chicago, they had laws and ordi- nances that were passed by those bodies before they were annexed, they made certain districts local option, or prohibition, and then by statute a law was passed which provides that those laws cannot be changed only by direct vote of the people residing within those districts; and that is what I un- derstand Alderman Bennett refers to; there is nothing to be done here to change the state law. I don’t care anything about that; I am not particularly interested in changing that state law which provides the City Council shall not have the au- thority or power to change the law in those districts. But I think in a sense it does refer to the very same subject that this other matter does, which is contained in the resolution sent in by the United Societies. Further, I do not think a distinction should be made here at this time in regard to this mat- ter, while on former occasions, when we reached certain subjects, a motion was made to have the matter made a special order, and no objection was raised at all, and they were made spe- cial orders. Now, when a motion is made to make this matter, which I think is a very important one, a spe- cial order, why, objection is raised, without giving any reason for it at all. I think we should be consistent, and when we make one matter a special or- der because it is important, I do not know any reason why we should not make another important matter a spe- cial matter. MR. BENNETT : The amendment offered by me raises four questions: First, the annexation law of the an- nexed towns. There is also contained a provision which provides that the laws of the State of Illinois relating to the sale of liquors shall not be changed, or the law creating and de- fining criminal offenses or relating to the prosecution or punishment thereof; nor shall any amendment or adoption be made to the charter of the City of Chicago except by the general assem- bly, or any part thereof shall, directly or indirectly, be abrogated, appealed December 13 274 1906 or annulled. So that the question which is presented here by my resolu- tion is involved when the other matter is taken up, and I think it might be well to take up the whole subject mat- ter at the end, when we come to 22. For my part, I can see no objection to Alderman Werno ’s matter going over until we reach that point. I think it would be well to let the whole subject matter go over until then. MR. FISHER: Including your reso- lution? MR. BENNETT: Including my or- der. MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman, these two resolutions are in certain parts of them the direct antithesis of each other. You cannot adopt one, or discuss one, without inevitably discussing or adopt- ing the provisions of the other, which may be in precise conflict — in fact, as the resolutions are now drawn, they are now in precise conflict. I think we all understand what the issue is. As the resolution offered by Mr. Bennett — if that is voted in the present form, the question of the maintenance of the present law in regard to Sunday clos- ing would be upheld and it would also protect the prohibition districts as they now exist. Then, another matter: The resolution by Alderman Werno and Mr. Rosenthal would leave the subject of Sunday closing to be decided by the City Council without regard to the legislature. MR. JONES: In reply to Mr. Wer- no ’s suggestion: As I understand this resolution proposed by Mr. Werno and Mr. Rosenthal, it is to substitute alter- native No. 1 of Section 7. Now, al- ternative No, 1 of Section 7 is a mat- ter before the house, and if this means that all this matter regarding home rule is to be deferred until later on, it seems to me the motion should be voted down. Alternative No. 1 to Section 7 is the matter now before the house. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Badenoch, Beilfuss, Carey, Crilly, Dever, Eckhart, J. W. ; Fisher, Graham, Linehan, McCormick, McGoorty, McKinley, Merriam, O’Donnell, Owens, Robins, Yopicga, Werno, Zimmer — 19. Nays — Beebe, Bennett, Brosseau, Brown, Clettenberg, Dixon, G. W. ; Eck- hart, B. A.; Guerin, Hunter, Jones, Kittleman, Lundberg, MacMillan, Paul- lin, Pendarvis, Raymer, Shanahan, Shep- ard, Smulski, Snow, Sunny, Taylor, Walker, White, Wilkins — 25. (During Roll Call.) MR. BENNETT: What is the ques- tion? THE CHAIRMAN: Alderman Werno moves to make a special order for Satur- day of the resolution introduced by him and Mr. Rosenthal which is printed in the lower right hand corner of Page 267. The Secretary will call the roll. MR. GUERIN : I desire to change my vote before the vote is announced. I vote no. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Guerin changes his vote. THE SECRETARY: Guerin, no. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the motion to defer the ayes are nineteen, and the noes twenty-five. The motion is lost. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the powers of the city council. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I move that both of these questions be taken up when we reach Section 22. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion. MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman, doesn’t Alderman Bennett wish to divide that matter? MR. BENNETT: I think this subject as presented by Alderman Werno could all be deferred and taken up on No. 22. THE CHAIRMAN : All those in favor of the motion, aye. Opposed, no. It is so ordered. The motion prevailed. December 13 275 1906 THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the powers of the City Council. MR. O ’DONNELL : I would like to have an understanding with the Chair. I made a motion at the last meeting; I gave notice to move to reconsider the vote by which that four-year term for alderman was passed. I do not think I want to call that up to-night. I do not want to interrupt this business. I want to reserve the right to call it up at some future meeting. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is so understood. MR. FISHER : Mr. Chairman, is there a notice pending that the four-year term of mayor is also to come up at some time? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir; both notices are pending. Will the Secretary read the Section, please? THE SECRETARY: Read at page 52, the right hand column of the page. THE CHAIRMAN: I think we will take up this first proposition. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman, I move you the adoption of Section 1. If I may state now my reasons for moving the adoption at this time of Section 1, I would do so in a very few words. Sec- tion 1 provides the city council shall have all of the powers not conferred upon it by law, except as modified by this charter. The following alternative to No. 1 and Section 1, the paragraph 1, following — paragraph 2, rather, follow- ing, proposes to add to these powers now vested in the city council and provided for by this Section 1, the adoption of which I move. Section 1 can be adopted and disposed of and we can add to that power either under the provisions of al- ternative 1, as indicated, or under the provisions of Section 2, as indicated, or under any other motion offered or to be offered by the Convention, as the Con- vention sees fit. But it seems to me that Section 1 can now be adopted, and as I am advised it means in its scope it may be adopted without any impairment of the discussion of the merits of the follow- ing provisions. Therefore, I move its adoption. MR. O’DONNELL: I second the mo- tion. MR. FISHER: If that is the under- standing of the house? MR. SHEPARD : Certainly. THE CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen, you have heard the motion that Section 1 — that No. 1, Section 7, be adopted. The matter is before the house for discus- sion. MR. FISHER: Question. MR. WERNO: Mr. Chairman, what is the motion? THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is the adoption of the first paragraph of Sec- tion 7 : ‘ ( The powers of the City Council shall be as now prescribed by law ex- cept as modified by this charter.” That is an opportunity to substitute No. 1 if the gentleman sees fit. But the Chair- man will assume when a member makes a motion to adopt some particular section if the Convention wants something else substituted it will do it. It is the desire to get the matter before the Convention in some definite form. As many as favor the motion will sig- nify by saying aye. Opposed, no. It is so ordered. The motion prevailed. THE CHAIRMAN: What will you do to alternative No. 1? MR. JONES: I move you that we adopt paragraph No. 2 in lieu of altern- ative to 1. THE CHAIRMAN: Will the Secre- tary read paragraph No. 2? The Secretary read the paragraph. MR. YOPICKA: I move, as an amendment, that we shall adopt altern- atives to 1. I move that as an amend- ment. THE CHAIRMAN: I beg your par- don, sir; I did not get that. MR. VOPICKA: I say, I move that we amend the motion of Mr. Jones to December 13 276 1906 read that we shall take the first one up, alternatives to 1. THE CHAIRMAN: You move that the first vote be taken on alternative 1? MR. VOPICKA: Yes, sir. THE CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen, that brings the first alternative to No. 1 be- fore the house as a substitute motion for Mr. Jones’ motion. MR, JONES: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN : Senator Jones. MR. JONES: Is the subject open for discussion now? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MR. JONES: I have had consider- able difficulty in making up my mind as to just what the alternative to No. 1 means, and just what is meant by para- graph 2, but as I construe them, they mean two different things, and alterna- tive No. 1 gives to the City Council much broader powers than is given by alterna- tive No. 2. THE CHAIRMAN : By paragraph No. 2. MR, JONES: By paragraph No. 2. The first part of alternative No. 1, down to the word “modify,” as I understand, is the equivalent of paragraph 1, which we have just adopted. The first part reads : 1 1 The charter shall vest in the City Council all the legis- lative powers now conferred by the Gen- eral Cities and Villages Act, and addi- tions thereto, except as by other pro- visions of this charter modify. ’ ’ Now, I understand that that language which I have just quoted, means exactly the same as paragraph 1, which we have already adopted. Therefore, if we should adopt alternatives No. 1, we would add to the present powers of the City Council in accordance with the last portion of alternative to No. 1: “And in general, but subject to the provisions of this charter, all powers of local legislation which can, under the constitution, be vested in the municipality. ’ ’ Now, I understand that that would give the City Council full powers as to legis- lation on all local matters which might be covered by future general laws with respect to local matters. I believe that that power is broader than we should ask of the legislature, Now, if we examine paragraph 2, the first part of it, as I understand, is merely a general statement of intention, but the important part is the last part of the paragraph, and that provides that the City of Chicago, by which I understand the legislative department of the city is to have all powers which can constitu- tionally be delegated to it, subject only to the constitution of the state, and the charter, which is the city constitution, and to the general laws of the state which are now in existence or which may hereafter be passed. Therefore, the difference between al- ternative 1 and paragraph 2 is: that the powers of the city council under para- graph 2 would be subject to the general laws of the state, while under alternative 1, they would be subject to the general laws which may hereafter be passed. Now, I believe that the powers, as set fo^th in paragraph 2, are proper and ap- propriate, and they have been granted to cities in many city charters in other states. I believe that the other powers as set forth in alternative 1 are too broad. As I view it, there are four classes of laws that the City Council should be sub- ject to: First, the constitution of the state ; and, second, the constitution of the city, or the charter; and, the third, the general law now in existence except as specially modified by the charter; and, fourth, the general laws hereafter to be passed by the legislature. Now, as to that last clause, I under- stand that under paragraph 2 the City Council would have full power to legis- late as to all matters not covered by general laws where they are local laws, until the legislature sees fit to pass a December 13 277 1906 general law. As soon as the legislature passes a general law on any of these subjects, then the powers of the City Council would be limited to that extent. Now, I believe that that is proper. It says, that those powers must be such as can be constitutionally delegated, and the courts hold that the legislature can only delegate local powers or powers over local matters to the City Council. I believe, therefore, that paragraph 2 should be passed, because that extends , to the City Council beyond what it now has under the constitution and the City and Village Act, the power to legislate concerning all matters of local improve- ments which are not covered at present by any general law of the state, but it leaves in the legislature power at any time to limit the powers of the City Council with- out respect to matters not now covered by general laws. I believe that by giving to the City Council these powers, it enables the City Council to legislate on new matters, as they arise, without going back to the legislature for a specific grant of power. As I understand the law now, the only powers which the city legislature can pass, are those which are specifically del- egated to it by the Cities and Villages Act and the amendments to that, and every time the City Council wishes to legislate upon some new matter it must go to the legislature and get a specific law passed empowering it to so act. Now, under paragraph 2, the City Council is to have absolute power to legislate with respect to local matters where there is no general law of the state which prevents, and where, of course, the constitution and the city charter permit; but the legislature al- ways has it within its power at any time, by passing a general law, to take away from the council all or any por- tion of those general powers which they have, been exercising. I believe, therefore, that we should pass paragraph No. 2, and I believe that we should not pass the alternative to No. 1, because it fails to give to the legisla- ture, or to reserve to the legislature, the power at any time by passing general laws to limit the powers of the City Council. MR. VOPICKA: Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen: It seems to me that we are called here to prepare a new charter for the City of Chicago, and the main object in it is to give home rule to the City of Chicago. Mr. Jones very ably stated the situa- tion as to alternative to No. 1 and para- graph No. 2, but if alternative No. 1 is passed, the City Council and the mayor will both gain more power. Then they will not have to go with every little thing to the legislature and ask them to pass some law which, in the future, might prove derogatory to the proper manage- ment of the City of Chicago. I do not wish to go deeply into the matter; I will .leave that to the lawyers in this Convention, but I believe every delegate came here prepared to give more rights to. the City Council and the mayor than they have at the present time. Mr. Jones and the other gentlemen must not be afraid that we will give them too many rights. The way the delegates are on record today, it seems that they are afraid to square the issues, and decide the issues squarely. Now, we had a motion to postpone ac- tion on this article until next Saturday, which w'as voted down. I believe that the resolution which was offered by Mr. Werno that these matters ought to be taken up at the same time with this arti- cle ought not to have been voted down. I hope, gentlemen, that you will vote for alternative 1 in preference to paragraph No. 2, and give a little more power to the City Council in the future. MR. FISHER: I think the difficulty that has arisen here is due to a failure of accurate statement in regard to reso- December 13 278 1905 lution No. 2. As I understand resolution No. 2, it should have been introduced somewhat in this way: 1 1 That the charter shall provide or shall contain the provision that the speci- fication of particular powers shall never be construed as a limitation upon the general powers/’ and so on. In other words, the author of resolu- tion No. 2 intended to have incorporated in the charter practically that substan- tial language, that exact language. So that in construing the charter, the ruling or construction would be laid down, viz., that the specifications of particular pow- ers shall not be construed as a limitation upon the general powers granted by this charter, it being intended to grant and bestow upon the City of Chicago all the powers of municipal government which can constitutionally be delegated to it by the legislature, and so forth, and that it is not really an alternative to No. 1, and the drafter of the resolution evi- dently did not so intend it. It seems to me we are in confusion on account of that. As a matter of fact, the alternative to No. 1 is a different thing from reso- lution No. 2. No. 2 is intended merely to lay down a rule of construction. Now, alternative to No. 1, is as stated by Sena- tor Jones in the first part, a mere dupli- cation in different language of resolu- tion No. 1, or at least the Convention has so accepted it; so that the only language of alternative No. 1 that remains, is that the charter shall in general provide that subject to the provisions of this charter, the city shall have all powers of local legislation which can, under the consti- tution, be vested in a municipality. And, I should take that to be a mere instruc- tion to the drafting committee or person that that provision in the charter should be so drafted that the city should be given all the power which can constitu- tionally be delegated to it by the legisla- ture, subject to the provisions of the constitution, and to those things upon which we specifically agree to be in- serted in the charter. If I am correct in that interpretation of the alternative to No. 1, it raises the broad question before this question, as to whether or not, after we have decided upon the particular things that we agree upon, that this charter shall then be sub- ject to subsequent amendment by the City Council, in the manner proposed for amendments, so that the City Council and the mayor of the City of Chicago may act upon these matters without going to the legislature every time we want to do anything. And, whether that is the meaning or not, at some time or place, — and if that is the meaning, this is the time and place to vote upon that ques/ tion, — there should be such a vote. The law committee was asked by one of the committees having this matter in charge, to give an opinion as to whether or not it -would be possible to put a charter into the few lines which should simply provide that the City of Chicago should have power to pass any legislation whatever, that it might see fit, with regard to municipal matters, and the law committee expressed the opinion that such a charter so limited to those few lines, would not be legal, that it would not be valid under the constitution. Now, however, alternative to No. 1 in that part of it which yet remains for discussion, I should take it would mean simply that the drafting committee is in- structed that they shall prepare as broad a provision in that regard as the consti- tution of this city will permit; and, if that is the meaning of it, I have some- thing to say upon that proposition. I think that Mr. Yopicka has struck the keynote of the question : The whole proposition is whether or not we shall adopt a charter now which shall set out in such detail as we may wish, the form of government under which the City of Chicago shall proceed to do business. December 13 279 1906 after that charter is adopted, leaving it open to the City of Chicago thereafter to make such changes in that charter as it may desire, without having to run to the state legislature. And if there are any particular things which we wish to eliminate from that power, that we shall eliminate them in the charter. For instance, if we wish to insert a provision in the charter with regard to the limiting of revenue, for the limit of taxation, we shall do so. If we wish to insert any other provisions we shall do so, and we shall provide that those things shall not be generally excepted by the legislature. The constitutional amendment itself provides that if so changed, by the legislature, they do not become law in the City of Chicago, un- less and until the people of this city adopt them, so that the safeguard is there. Now, for my part, I would like to see this charter after we have agreed on the thing which we think is the wise instru- ment under which we can begin to do business under a new charter, I should like to see it contain provisions under which, except upon those particular sub- jects we wish to except, that this city can legislate for itself and control its own form of government. I believe that that is the fundamental proposition we are brought here to consider, that the people of this city expect us to draft a charter that will be as nearly broad as that, as the limitations of the law will permit, and I think” that the people of the city who wish that are wise. There are men who believe that the collective wisdom of the state as gathered in the legislative assembly at Springfield, is I greater than the collective wisdom that will be gathered in the City Council, supplemented by the people of this city. I say, that upon the matters which con- cern the people of this city, they are wrong. If this state only contained ! 2,000,000 inhabitants, and contained the I 2,000,000 inhabitants who lived in the City of Chicago, the wisdom of those peo- ple would not be any greater than it is today. If half of them were out through the rural districts and they were asked to pass upon legislation relating solely to the municipality, the collective wisdom of those people as to that particular matter would be less than it would be if it we^e vested entirely in the people living entirely within the city. Why should gentlemen believe that the collec- tive wisdom of 2,000,000 people gathered within the city limits of Chicago, and voiced by their representatives, with proper provisions for referendum, is no less worthy than the wisdom of 2,000,000 or less gathered in the state of Montana, or the state of Rhode Island, or any other state that does not happen to embrace 2,000,000 people. There seems to be some sort of an idea abroad that the same number of people, if they are scattered over a territory the size of Rhode Island or Connecticut, can legislate with regard to all matters municipal and rural with entire proprie- ty; but that if they happen to be gath- ered in any city as they are in Chicago, that those people must somehow or an- other be safeguarded by an assemblage composed partly of their representatives of the people, wiio live hundreds of miles away from the scene of action, and w’ho have had no experience with the problems that confront us, and have r.o lcnowiedgc of them. Now, for my part, I do not believe in that for a moment. There may be some things, as, for instance, with re- gard to the taxation or revenue, with re- gard to the limit of municipal indebted- ness where the people in this state and the people in this city are not now will- ing to remove those constitutional or statutory safeguards which they believe have preserved their interests in the past, and preserve them now. And I believe upon that point that we are following December 13 280 1906 the dictates of wisdom if we put reason- able limitations upon them and seek to avoid a disputed question of that particu- lar character upon which we know there would be immediate issue rise. And, I believe that if we preserved those limi- tations, if we except those things, that all other matters relating to municipal home rule should be vested in the people, and for them and their legally elected representatives. I believe we will get wiser action, saner action in that way, and I believe that we will get what, in the long run is the more conservative action, because wise progressiveness is always in the long run more conservative than is non-progressiveness. THE CHAIRMAN: Your time has expired, Mr. Fisher. MR. SHEPARD: Section 1 has been adopted by this Convention, Mr. Chair- man, which gives to the City of Chicago all the rights that it now has under the law. Paragraph 2, moved by Senator Jones, extends that right with some spe- cified limitations. The alternative pro- posed by Mr. Vopicka raises the bald proposition of no limitation, so far as legislative authority of the General As- sembly of the State of Illinois is con- cerned. You might as well strip this question now of all verbiage and dressing and misleading phrases and get down to the question which this raises, which this proposition raises before this Convention, namely, shall the legislature of this state abrogate, so far as the City of Chicago is concerned, in favor of the City Council of this city, shall there be no limita- tion upon this power whatsoever? That is the question that is now before this Convention. I, for one, believe in a fair and reasonable limitation, and for that reason I oppose the motion to adopt al- ternative 1. This reverses the adoption of this resolution, reverses our scheme of government, the scheme of government that has prevailed throughout the history I of this country, throughout the history of every one of its states, and of its municipalities the legislature creates the I municipality; it created the City of Chi- cago and delegated to it certain powers. From time to time it has extended these powers, has added to those powers; we now seek to reverse that action and base in the City Council of the City of Chi- cago all of the power vested in the legis- lature of the state, through the sovereign power of the state itself. MR. FISHER : Except as provided in the charter. MR*. SHEPARD: We are making the charter now. MR. FISHER : I say, excepting as to be hereinafter provided in the charter. MR. SHEPARD: Not excepting it, no. MR. FISHER: That is the language. MR. SHEPARD: Excepting only the limitations reserved upon the legislature itself by the constitution of the State of of Illinois. MR. FISHER: Oh, no, pardon me, Mr. Shepard, that is hardly it. MR. SHEPARD: Yes, but where does it lead to, except as reserved in the charter. MR. FISHER : Certainly. MR. SHEPARD: Which is the char- ter of the City of Chicago. So what is to be in the charter need not be put in this general delegation of power. MR. FISHER: May I give you an illustration? You asked the question that this lead to? Just as you prefer, I don ’t care to answer the question unless it was intended to be answered. If it was only an oratorical question, I don’t want to interrupt you. THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed, Mr. Shepard. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Fisher’s sug- gestion that they reserve the question of taxation THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would i suggest that if any one wishes to in- December 13 281 1906 terrupt the speaker that he please call the Chair’s attention to it, the Chair’s attention should be claimed first, so that the reporter may get the record com- plete and correct. ME. SHEPARD : He suggests that the power of taxation, if they adopt this, is still reserved in the legislature. I don’t think that is true; that omnibus resolution would also go to the City Council except only as the constitution of the state has placed limitations upon the General Assembly of the S.tate. We are here trying to do some good, to formulate some legislation that should be for the permanent benefit of the City of Chicago. I believe that if this un- limited power contemplated by this reso- lution is vested in the City of Chicago we will do more harm, if that is enacted into a law, than we can by any other provi- sion that we can recommend to the legis- lature which it might adopt. Without limitation we would have that irregulari- ty of legislation that always has pre- vailed in municipal business, and I say that without any reflection at all upon the municipal bodies existing in this state, especially without any reflection upon the City Council. But the conserva- tive, well thought out legislation that makes for the permanent good of a community is better brought out under the safe and fair limitations and regu- lations than that legislation that is brought about generally upon the mo- ment under unlimited authority. Un- der the adoption of our first section and w r ith such additions as this Convention may see fit to recommend to the legis- lature we can give to the City Council everything that we can anticipate that the City Council requires properly to legislate for the City of Chicago ; and we can close the door to the demand of uncertainty and place upon the City Council those limitations which require the test of thought and of time before propositions are enacted into a law. Gentlemen, it seems to me that we would proceed unwisely for the bene- fit of this great city if we at this time, or at any time, place within the City Council the unlimited, unrestricted legis- lative power contemplated by Mr. Yopic- ka ’s motion. ME. McGOORTY: I think if the members of this Convention keep clearly in mind -what is meant by the words 1 1 local legislation ’ ’ that we will not have much difficulty in agreeing upon this proposition of giving to Chicago a proper grant of general powers, which is commonly designated as home rule. I don’t think any one will contend that the legislature even has the right upon the limitations imposed upon it by the constitution, to give any municipality in this state, or to give to the City of Chi- cago under the constitutional amend- ment, the right to legislate upon any matter that is of general concern to the entire state. For instance, what is known broadly ns the police power, any matter relating to the criminal jurispru- dence of this state, and broadly speaking, any matter affecting the policy of edu- cation in the state, or any matter af- fecting the revenue, or any other subject in which the state as a whole had an interest of general concern ; but this is ' dealing with the sphere of administra- tive activity, ^natters of local concern, which we are to consider. That is why 1 agree with Mr. Fisher that paragraphs 2 and 3 — paragraph 3, which has not been read yet, are merely explanatory of alternative 1. Now, we know that in the cities of the old world, continental cities where they do not oppose home rule so far as the city is concerned, that such cities are given a free hand in local affairs, and here in Chicago the city cannot engage in any municipal activity except as now expressly delegated to it by statute, without going to Spring- field; and the purpose of this, as I take it, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, mem- December 13 282 1906 bers of this Convention, is to place the City of Chicago in a position where it will have a freer hand in dealing with matters which are purely local. But to satisfy the doubts and fears of those gentlemen who placed the broad interpretation upon this alternative to 1 which Mr. Shepard has, Section 2 was added, as I remember it, and that is that no law shall be passed by the City Coun- cil of Chicago and by the mayor which shall conflict with any general law of the state or with the constitution, or the organic law of Illinois. Now, if we concede that the City of Chicago should have the right in local affairs, and safeguard it — place limita- tions upon the powers of the City Coun- cil, as it is done in the charter of Los Angeles and other cities that enjoy home rule charters, that no ordinance shall become a law unless the matter — unless it is a matter of emergency concerning the public health and public safety, that no ordinance providing for the increase of the bonded indebtedness, or of the ex- tension of franchises shall be adopted without referendum, and that all laws except emergency matters shall not be- come laws until at least thirty days, when any number of citizens — five or ten per cent — or whatever the number may be, may petition and ask that such ordinance so submitted shall be submitted to the voters at the general election for its adoption or rejection by the people — with such safeguards, I have no doubt that the committee which drafted this had such a provision in mind, that the City Council cannot on any Monday night pass an ordinance which becomes a part of the organic law, or, as Mr. Shepard says, a part of the constitution of this state; but when those matters do come up before the council meetings, they would only be current ordinances, or concerning emergency matters, and that by an overwhelming vote, as paragraph 3 provides, a four-fifths vote, that only such ordinances may be included with- out a line of objection, so as to be able by sufficient time, to give the public an opportunity to examine and discuss them; and I believe that the spirit or intention of this Convention is to give Chicago broader powers; and I am in favor of placing a very wise limitation that may be placed, so that Chicago shall not exceed those powers ; but I think that Section 2, and Section 3, which fol- lows, and that an amendment which should be added, which will provide as I have indicated, that no ordinance af- fecting the future of the city like the matter relating to the bonded indebted- ness, or the granting of a franchise, should be granted without a referendum vote, and giving the right to the people to say whether or not any ordinance should be submitted to referendum or not ; that with those additional safe- guards we can well embark upon the policy which has been so successfully tried by quite a number of American cities, not any one of which has been under the necessity of changing the law, so far as I know, or in voting against it, so far as I know, commencing with Kansas City, and the latest cities that have adopted it. There seems to be uniform opinion upon reform in mu- nicipal problems in this country, by do- ing away with the thought of national politics, that politics should take con- trol in local affairs, and that municipali- ties should be allowed to work out their own problems. MR. PENDARYIS: I wish to ask the gentleman a question. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pendarvis claims attention. MR. PENDARYIS: I would like to ask the gentleman if he believes that the policy indicated in the latter part of alternative 1 should be the general state policy with reference to municipal affairs? THE CHAIRMAN: Will you speak December 13 I 283 1906 up, please? I don't believe the reporter could get your question. ME. McGOOETY : The gentleman asks, Mr. Chairman, if the last Section 1 should be the general state policy with reference to municipal affairs. Is that the question? ME. PENDAEVIS: Yes. ME. McGOOETY: It can be disposed of by saying that it cannot be done un- der the present constitution; that such power can only be given the City of Chicago by virtue of the recent consti- tutional amendment. ME. PENDAEVIS: I submit that that is a technical answer to my question. My question is whether any municipality in the state should have the same powers, and couldn't it be done constitutionally. If so, it should be done in the City of Chicago. A MEMBEE: That would be impos- sible. ME. McGOOETY: I desire to say that I have always stood up for the policy of home rule in municipalities. I believe the smallest hamlet in Illi- nois should not be required to go to Springfield for a matter which is pure- ly local; for a local concern, any more than the city of two million people. That answers the question. ME. JONES: I have sent up a sub- stitute to the desk which I would like to have read as a substtute to that which is before the house. THE CHAIEMAN: The Secretary will read the substitute. THE SECEETAEY : By Mr. Jones: The City Council shall have all pow- ers of local legislation which can, un- der the constitution, be vested in a municipality; subject to the constitu- tion of the state, the provisions of the charter, and the general laws of the state. ME. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I offer that substitute for the reason that there seems to me to be some misun- derstanding here as to the meaning of this section from both Mr. Fisher and Mr. McGoorty. There is some misun- derstanding. Their understanding of paragraph 2 is entirely different from mine. Now, the substitute that I have presented is in the words of the last part of alternative 1 now before the house granting that all powers of local legislation which are under the con- stitutional law be vested in the mu- nicipality, but subject to the consti- tution of the state and the provisions of this charter, and of the general laws. That is the subject of the pro- vision set forth in paragraph 2. ME. DEVEE: I would like to ask a question. THE CHAIEMAN: Eaise your voice. ME. DEVEE: I would like to ask a question. I would like to ask what he thinks “subject to the general laws of the state" to mean in his amend- ment. ME. JONES: I would understand it to mean that any powers exercised by the City Council must be in conformity with the requirements of the state con- stitution: It must not be in conflict with any special provision of the legis- lature provided anywhere in the char- ter; it must not conflict with any now existing general law, except as modi- fied by some special provision of the charter; and it must not conflict with any future general law which may hereafter be passed by the legislature, within the powers of the legislature. ME. DEVEE: May I follow that up by another question? Supposing, for instance, that the charter has in it a provision — powers to legislate on the subject of a general law which it now has power to legislate on? ME. JONES: T should say if there is a general law of the state which has application throughout the state and the charter makes exception with re- spect to the general law that the gen- eral law would be abrogated as far as that is concerned. But there are a lot December 13 284 1906 of matters this charter will provide for anyway, and under this resolution I have presented all those matters that are local matters are in the power of the City Council unless the legislature chooses to pass some general law lim- iting that power. MR. SHANAHAN: Before these amendments are voted on I would like to ask this question of some of the gentlemen who have spoken on this subject: What are the objections to enumerating the specific .powers that the City Council desire in this charter, be they one, one hundred, or two hun- dred? MR. McGOORTY: Mr. Chairman, I have spoken once, but I wish to say that I do not believe it is in the power of any finite mind to anticipate any number of years in advance the wants of a great and growing city, with all the changes that modern progress im- plies. And that is why the express ob- ligation of powers by itseif with any other specific grounds of express pow- ers is objectionable. It is a matter of policy. MR. O’DONNELL: Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment to the pend- ing question that the words, “Any general law of the state,” be stricken out. It tends to confuse you. THE CHAIRMAN: Louder, Mr. 0 ’Donnell. MR. O’DONNELL: Those words tend to a great deal of confusion. As 1 understand it, we are liberated here by our constitutional Convention from the general laws of the state to a great extent, and Chicago should be locally self governed, and unhampered by any general law. Those words are confusing. We are limited, as we should be limited, by the constitution. I thiqk if those words are eliminated, it will clear the atmosphere, and the drafters of this charter — when they get around to draft it,— will draft such a charter as in the judgment of this Con- vention will determine what the people of Chicago will adopt, and that we can unite on here, and go down to the legislature at Springfield as one man to request and demand they give us that charter. Now, if we eliminate this mat- ter of the general laws it will be bet- ter. If we incumber this matter with the general laws, I do not know how the drafters of the charter will ever begin or end their work. MR, SHANAHAN: Do I understand it is the desire that no general law heretofore passed by the state legisla- ture shall apply to Chicago? MR. O’DONNELL: I do not mean that; I mean to say this: What I want is that we can go on and legislate here by preparing a charter with the full powers granted to us by this late spec- ial amendment, unhampered by any- thing save the constitution of the state. And when we fit our conditions here, as we will, in the charter by inserting such laws and such powers here as will commend itself to the people of Chica- go and to the legislature. MR, SNOW: I desire to say just a word in opposition to the amendment — THE CHAIRMAN: A little louder, Alderman. MR. SNOW: I desire to say just a word in opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. O’Donnell. Personally I am firmly convinced that this Con- vention now has reached the whole crux of the matter so far as charter legis- lation is concerned. MR, ROBINS: May we have the amendment read offered by Mr. O’Don- nell. Some of us didn’t get that amend- ment. So we will understand it. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion of Mr. O’Donnell is to strike out the words: “And the general laws of the state,” as I understand it. MR. FISHER: May we have the original read so we can all hear it? THE CHAIRMAN: What is that? December 13 285 1906 MR. FISHER: We would like to have the original read. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the original. The Secretary read as hereinbefore. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. O’Donnell moves to strike out the words: “And the general laws of the state,” Sena- tor-Alderman Snow. MR. SNOW: Now, Mr. Chairman, this Convention is meeting now because of the fact that in the experience of Chicago we have learned that a char- ter drawn with specific powers, enum- erative powers, is inadequate to care for the wants and interests of a rapid growing community; because we have learned that it is beyond the power of any men to foresee in the future far enough to grant in specific grants all the powers to cover questions which may arise after the passage of this specific charter. For that reason I am very confirmed in the opinion that it is essential that this Convention shall adopt a charter, which, in addition to the enumerative powers which the city has, shall give us the widest possible latitude of legislation upon those ques- tions which are purely local to Chicago. But, I am equally of the opinion that we cannot adopt such a charter — should not adopt such a charter as will divorce the City of Chicago from the State of Illinois. The proposition which Mr. O’Donnell offers as an amendment to Senator Jones’ motion in effect will be to create another state inside of the State of Illinois. Now, I believe that for those things which are strictly lo- cal, for the handling of questions which belong to Chicago alone, that we should have ample powers; but that series of questions which are the same in Cairo as they are in Chicago, the power of legislation should remain in the State of Illinois. I do not know that I make myself entirely clear on that point, but what I am trying to drive at is: That we should have a free hand in the conduct of those things which are affecting the people of Chicago alone, and in which the balance of the people of the State., of Illinois are not interested; but that we should not be divorced from the state upon any question which has a general application to us, because we are citizens of the commonwealth of Illinois. MR. DEVER: The criminal law. MR, SNOW: The criminal law for one; if possible, the banking laws, pos- sibly, and as we may limit them here in Chicago the question of public edu- cation; the question of Sunday laws, if you please. The question of prohi- bition as it has been granted to the people of Chicago by previous legisla- tion. Any of those questions which ap- ply to all of the people because we be- long to the commonwealth of Illinois, and which do not particularly concern us because we are citizens of Chicago. It seems to me that that distinction can be drawn, and certainly that it should be drawn. Aside from that, I am in complete sympathy personally with what has been said by Mr. McGoorty, because I believe that this Convention exists in order that the strings which bind Chi- cago in the management of its own af- fairs in Springfield should be loosened. I believe that the people of Chicago are competent to manage their own af^ fairs. I believe they should manage their local affairs by a representative assembly in which they choose every member, instead of a representative assembly in which they choose one- third of the membership. I can see no reason why the people of this city are not in every way competent to care for j those affairs which affect them alone j without the assistance of members of the legislature elected from communi- ties that have no knowledge of the con- 1 ditions that prevail here. Therefore, with the exception of the December 13 286 1906 amendment which has been offered by- Mr. O ’Donnell, personally I am in complete sympathy with the desire and the demand that Chicago shall be given home rule upon all matters affecting her alone. MR. DEYER: I would like to dis- cuss this question; it is rather a big question; I would rather wait and give it some consideration, however. It seems to me we are agreed upon gen- eral principles, we are all agreed that Chicago should have more or less broad home rule government. The trouble with us occurs on the application of those principles, to the particular sit- uation that we have here. Now, what are the things that ought to be re- served to the legislature of the state? Alderman Snow says the banking laws, the insurance laws, the criminal laws, and possibly the Sunday closing law, and many other things he could men- tion. But in the discussion of this ap- plication of the home rule principle we are apt to split, if we split at all, it seems to me on its application. It seems to me that that is the question we should discuss here now. That is why I thought it was proper for me to interrupt Alderman Snow. It is an ex- tremely difficult question to apply what has been claimed for the home rule principle. We understand clearly, we all of us do, that we are in favor of the home rule principle, but it is in its application to the affairs of the people of Chicago that we have difficulty in agreeing in this convention. Now, spitting on the sidewalk is an unsani- tary act. It causes as much damage in Cairo as in Chicago, but the criminal law does not prohibit it; but the city should prohibit it, and it should be made a state measure as much as a city measure. So with the selling of liquor on Sunday, and after hours. It is as much an evil to do that — if it is an evil at all — in Cairo as in Chicago. It is in the application of this thing that we shall, have trouble. I hope the Con- vention instead of spending all of the time discussing the questions which have been already well discussed should apply itself to this proposition. We do not doubt for a moment that we want home rule, but what do you mean by it; how shall we apply it; in what class of cases are we to apply it to Chicago? # MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask one question of Alderman Snow. Now, as I understand it, it was the general law under which a fraternal society was a short time ago indicted because it sold beer in their club rooms on a Sunday. I would like to ask the alderman if this amend- ment of the senator’s was carried would that still mean that Chicago could not allow a fraternal organiza- tion to sell beer or liquor in its club rooms on a Sunday. MR. SNOW: I assume that it would, because it would be a violation of the criminal laws of the State of Illinois. MR, JONES: May I answer Mr. Thompson’s question in a little differ- ent way? If we provide in this char- ter a special provision that the City Council shall have power over Sunday closing, and the legislature consents to that, then the passage of the resolu- tion which I have put before the house would not interfere with the City Coun- cil handling saloon matters; and, as I understand it, this is a matter where the City Council should have power over licensing, and so forth. It re- serves for some future time — if we pass this resolution just as I have stated, it would not prevent us from voting in favor of putting a clause in the char- ter to that effect, if the majority of this Convention decide that; because it says: “Subject to the special pro- visions of this charter, and subject to the general laws.” Now, if a special provision of this charter altering the general laws — that is, if a special pro- December 13 287 1906 vision alters this general law as to the closing of saloons, then that becomes a provision in the charter, and the legis- lature cannot, by a general law, alter that provision in the charter, as I un- derstand it, without a referendum to the people, and a vote of the people. As I look at it we can pass this resolu- tion to-night, to-morrow night. Some other time we can pass upon this ques- tion of the prohibition laws and of the saloon licenses. ME. MACMILLIAN: May I ask a question? THE CHAIEMAN: Certainly. ME. MACMILLAN: In the last line of Section 1, doesn't that practically cover the amendment, namely: “ Ex- cept as modified by this charter"? ME. JONES: I should say one mod- ification of this charter would be pro- duced by my amendment. There may be further modifications, but this is one, and a very essential one. ME. O'DONNELL: My intention in offering the amendment was to provide that the powers of the City Council should be enumerated in the charter without drafting it and having it in mind unless it is forbidden by the gen- eral law of the state. ME. LINEHAN: Or specific powers. That is what we are asking, that the powers shall be specific. ME. O’DONNELL: That is my in- tention. Enumerate your powers in your charter. ME. JONES: May I reply to Mr. O'Donnell? THE CHAIEMAN: 1 believe you spoke on the subject once. Mr. Mer- riam, did you claim the Chairman's attention? ME. MEEETAM: I did, sometime ago. The home rule proposition, while it does, of course, present some com- plicated phases — probably no more com- plicated than the existing situation, or than the situation in any state gov- erned as we are by a general munici- pal corporation 's act — the home rule proposition is essentially so clear and simple as to require no further eluci- dation than has already been given to it. It means, very plainly and simply, the power of a locality to decide and to control and to regulate those par- ticular matters which are exclusively and particularly local in their power, and on which the inhabitants of the particular locality are likely, when it is proposed, to be informed on, and likely to act upon more intelligently than upon those which do not come under those conditions, and from those who are not familiar with the local environments and conditions. Some gentlemen seem to have a mis- apprehension as to what is meant by municipal home rule. I have heard gentlemen state that by municipal home rule they understood — those were all opponents, however — they understood the secession of the city from the state; absolutely giving over to the City of Chicago powers from all the rest of the State of Illinois. Nothing could be more mistaken or false than the presumption that this was the in- tention of any advocate of what is commonly called municipal home rule. Under any system of home rule — and there are at least six states and at least one hundred and three cities where municipal home rule is permitted — un- der any such system of municipal home rule there are always four distinct classes of limitations binding the pow- ers of the city. In the first place, those limitations in the body of the charter itself, as, for example, the limitation upon the tax rate, the limitation upon the question that large franchises should be granted, or any other such limitations specifi- cally defined, specifically definite in their character as may be presented in the charter itself. The second is, there are always, and there always must be limitations that. December 13 288 1906 are found in the general laws of the state. If you read in the charter di- gest of the home rule charters of six states, you will find in each and every case, without exception, it is provided the charter shall be subject to the gen- eral laws of the state, in fact, nothing else would be possible, nothing else would be constitutional. The state cannot divest itself of its police power; the state .cannot divest itself of its power to pass criminal statutes, and no matter,, what the state of the charter, or what the state of the legislature may be, what the state legislature may say in the grant of power that states the authority, unless some exceptional change be made, they would inevitably have authority to pass laws of the general character, of uniform applica- tion to all inhabitants of the state alike. That is necessary in every city where municipal home rule obtains. Now, in the next place, you have in every city wherein municipal home rule is found, certain constitutional re- strictions and limitations. These are necessary and fundamental; they are provided for in the constitutions of the state to protect life and liberty and the property of the individuals, and the city has nothing to do with them; they are the organic law of the state, and no city charter has ever attempted to take away or interfere with those constitutional rights which develop in the state constitution, and if it were tried, it would not succeed, and not a single home ruler that I have ever heard of has ever advocated any such attempt, and it would not succeed if such an attempt were to be made. In the fourth place, and this is real- ly the most serious limitation of all of the powers of home rule, — in the fourth place, the courts always reserve the power of determining what is and what is not local, what is, and what is not a local affair. What are local affairs? There are a great many matters which may be said to be on the border line; a city may declare a certain thing to pe a municipal affair — the police pow- er, for instance, and the state may de- clare that it is not; now, which de- cides? There is under our system of government a defined tribunal of au- thority for the express purpose of de- ciding such matters, and that is the judiciary. In every state where you can find municipal home rule, there you find that the courts were always acting as guardians of the rights of the citizens, and they have been called upon in the exercise of their power to declare that' laws passed by certain cities were not local in their character, but properly state. Numerous institu- tions have been devised, — numerous cases have been cited to call attention to the fact that the courts in a great many eases — in almost every case, on every occasion, have always decided what is local, and what is a state af- fair. You have those four limitations in an}' system of home rule. First, the limitations of the charter; second, the limitations of the general laws of the state; third, the limitations of the con- stitution of the state, and fourth, the overshadowing power of the judiciary in exercising under our system the powei* of declaring what are local and what are state affairs, and thus safe- guarding the rights of the city as a whole as against the state. Some gentlemen have remarked that this is a novelty, something that has not been tried before in this or any other country. Quite to the contrary, the system we are now advocating is the novelty, the system which we are now advocating, now working in the cities of Boston and New York, have never been tried anywhere in the world, and been successful, — never have been successful in the world wherever and whenever tried, and I challenge the gentleman to show a single instance December 13 289 1906 or produce a single case in which it has been even successful, as it appears now to be working and operating in Chi- cago and Boston and New York; there is not one instance in continental Europe or in the Islands of Great Brit- ain, or on the Continent of North Amer- ica. The system has invariably proven to be a failure, and must be a failure; the proposition of defining and specifi- cally enumerating in detail, of attempt- ing in 1872 to define what the City Council of Chicago would do in 1906, is impossible and preposterous. That has been broken down; it has been broken down repeatedly, and it will be broken down if it be tried once more. There are no less than six states in which there are — in each and every one of which states there are a cer- tain number of cities having a cer- tain population, and in some cases, they are given the power to frame their home rule charters. Missouri has prac- ticed that, since 1875, and California followed Missouri, and Washington, and Colorado, and Oregon and Minnesota; these states — in these the cities in which there are over 100 cities there now, are given the power by the state law and by the state constitution, to frame their home rule charters. Now, with the experience of these states, running, say, in Missouri, for thirty years, and in California and the other states for shorter periods, it has been successful. Where you find this sub- ject matter of municipal home rule has been adopted the people are satis- fied with that aspect of their govern- ment. If you go to California, they may claim the government is wrong, — that the government is rotten, and if that is true, it devolves upon the people of the city, it is their own fault, if, as they claim, their government has gone bad; the wrong is not with i the legislature; so they say they would have done this if they had the 1 power, but in such case they cannot shift the responsibility; you place the responsibility where it should be placed, on the people who are imme- diately cognizant of the facts which may be acted upon. Those are the only sound principles upon which municipal ownership can successfully be operated. That is not a theory, it is not a mere novelty, but it is the result of systems which have proven to be practical systems, and have been declared to be practical sys- tems wherever tried. Now, during the course of this dis- cussion, it has been suggested that it might be well to enumerate and partic- ularize as to the special powers that were wanted, and the question has been asked, why not write them then? The reason is very plain; the principle has been worked out through municipal corporations, and in the attitude of the courts towards such conditions, that what is not enumerated is excluded; if you enumerate sixteen different kinds of licenses, and you come to the sev- enteenth, you didn't have at that time, in 1872, we will say, and you try to get the seventeenth sort of license, and the court says, “‘Why, no, you never intended to draft that at that time, therefore you excluded it, you left out that proposition, therefore we cannot give it to you." That is the principle that the courts of this country have uniformly applied in the consideration of city charters and grants and powers to the cities. MR. FTSHER: I would like to ask a question. To bring this proposition down to a concrete point, if wo adopt ■Senator .Tones' resolution, and the res- olution No. 2 following that, would we cover the point, in your judgment, Mr. Merriam, or do they conflict with each other? MR. MERRTAM: Senator Jones’ motion provides for amending alter- native 1, by adding, “And the gen- December 13 290 1906 eral laws of the state.” I am agree- able to that; I think it should be read in that way, read into the charter and the general law of the state; if that was omitted there, I think it should be read into it. Mr. O’Donnell’s resolution is wholly foreign to the spirit of municipal home rule. If you adopt alternatives to one as you have the Jones’ amendment, and then adopt proposition 2, it seems to me you have done a good deal towards getting municipal home rule. MR. DEYER: I would like to ask a question: I am not clear on this. THE CHAIRMAN: If you will yield to a question? MR. MERRIAM: Certainly. MR. DEYER: It is not absolutely clear to me. This general law, as it is put, prohibits doing a certain thing by the City Council. Suppose that in our new charter we have given that power to the City Council, what then would be the result of our doing it? MR. MERRIAM: If the general law of the state, that is, the law of 1872, I suppose you mean, prohibits a cer- tain thing being done by the City Council? MR. DEYER: No, I mean as a gen- eral law. MR. MERRIAM: Your law of 1872, or any amendment prohibits any City Council from doing a certain thing? MR. DEYER: Yes. MR. MERRIAM: And this charter authorizes it? MR. DEVER : Yes. MR, MERRIAM: They can do it. MR. DEVER: They can? MR. MERRIAM : Yes. MR. FISHER: Under the Constitu- tional Amendment. MR. MERRIAM: The amendment of 1904. MR. DEVER: One other question; I would like to ask if there is anything in the constitution now, including the re- cent amendment and draft of uniform legislation that would interfere with the problem of validity of such provision in the new charter? MR. MERRIAM : I don ’t know of any such provision. MR. FISHER: May I not ask the Secretary to read the constitutional amendment, then we will know what is in it? It is in the digest. I presume we have a copy here. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the constitutional amendment. The Secretary then read the constitu- tional amendment, as requested. MR. ROBINS: I wish to take the time of the Convention for just a state- ment. I was resident of the city of San Francisco at the time of the adoption of a charter. I hope the illustration will clear in the minds of some of us what may be a local and municipal affair, within a thought of this amendment, and this charter. A certain political boss in the city of San Francisco found that he could not get certain privileges from the city supervisors, which answers the same thing in San Francisco as the City Council in Chicago. He went to the legislature and found certain legislators willing to legislate for the city of San Francisco, and he arranged that the sal- aries of all the leading officers of the police department, which, by the way, was democratic, should be raised several thousand dollars in the aggregate, some- thing like $60,000, and that the salaries of the men in the fire department — and that happene'd to be a republican or- ganization, and this happened to be a democratic ward boss — that the salaries of those men should be cut. That law was passed by the general legislature, at Sacramento, and received the signature of the governor. They applied, under the classification of municipalities, to the municipality of San Francisco. The matter was taken into the courts, and the courts set aside the legislation on the December 13 291 1906 ground that legislation of this sort was within the prohibition against legislation upon local and municipal affairs when there was a charter existing for the city. ' It seems to me that the thought of that decision might be basis of some generali- zation, I don’t say that it is entirely clear — might be the basis of some gen- eralization, as to what the legislature will be prohibited from legislating upon, while it has full power to legislate upon those general concerns that will apply to Cook County or any other county within the state. ME. PENDARVIS: I do not care to discuss this question, Mr. Chairman, at length, but only to make one statement as it appeals to me, as indicated in the question that I addressed to Mr. Mc- Goorty. It strikes me that while we are considering this matter as a local ques- tion applicable to the City of Chicago, we are, in effect, declaring upon a mat- ter of state policy, and I think it will so appeal to the members of the General Assembly. I understand that this action can only apply to the City of Chicago — I mean on the question of the constitu- tional amendment, and that it can never apply to any other city within the state until similar constitutional amendments are made; nevertheless, if the policy that we decide upon here is advocated as a good municipal policy, it necessarily means that it becomes a policy of state, which should, on application, be made to every municipality. I think we should consider in determining upon the broad- ness of the grant as to whether or not we can advocate it as a desirable state policy. We are practically going on record in going to the legislature upon this platform, whatever it may be, as one that should be applied to all mu- nicipalities within the state, if they so desire. I think the consideration of that ques- tion is worthy of our thought in voting upon this question, and that whether or not we can convince the legislature as a whole that the City of Chicago should, as Professor Merriam has said, like the state of Missouri, or some other state, adopt this policy as a state policy. MR. ROBINS: If I may be per- mitted to speak of the rule that was adopted by the state of California, the rule that was adopted was that for mu- nicipalities of 25,000 inhabitants, there was not permitted at that time a special charter, they could not have a special charter, and could not have the charac- teristics of local home rule, because it was not considered necessary for the full development of good government in those municipalities, but the larger municipali- ties presented different characteristics; they could not be taken care of by the legislature intelligently; and for thoge cities special charters were permitted. MR. FISHER: In aswer to Mr. Pen- darvis, or, rather, to the question which he raises— because I do not understand from what he said that he himself took any particular position upon it, I wish to say this: so far as I am concerned, I can see no reason why the same princi- ples of local home rule should not be ap- plied to all the cities in the state which apply to the City of Chicago. Of course, they have not reached a stage where the present law hampers or restricts them, and they may not be particularly anxious to have it, they evidently have not been so very anxious, because tKSy" have not asked for a constitutional amendment, and I see no good reason why the prin- ciple should not apply to cities under 25,000 ; I can see why the limitation should be placed on cities under 25,000; those cities with that population may be different than large municipalities, and still possibly with cities over 25j,000, there might be some different rule neces- sary. In other words, for illustration, we have in this hall a number of gentle- December 13 292 1906 men representing the City of Chicago in the state legislature; let us suppose in that body a matter relating peculiarly to local concerns of the city of Peoria comes up in the state legislature; do any of those gentlemen really think that they ought to settle that question for the city of Peoria? Do they think that they could settle it as wisely as the citizens of Peoria could settle it for themselves, under wise restrictions? It seems to me the answer is absolutely plain; and not only that, but as a practical matter the legislature has said to the City of Chi- cago every time these men have been there, and it has been done at . every ses- sion, "We are tired of having the City of Chicago bring down here its local af- fairs for us to thresh out in detail.” They have said that over and over again; they have said, “We cannot take all our time to discussing measures — your meas- ures; we will give you this one, or we will give you four or five, or a half a dozen in twenty or twenty-five that you have here, but we cannot take up all of the rest of them with you, and you have to be satisfied with so much, ’ ’ and that is the answer we get, not only as to those things that apply to what some peo- ple call radical measures, but that is the answer to things which people call con- servative measures. A proposition advo- cated by the Chicago Real Estate Board, advocated by the City Council, as a body, with practical unanimity, advocated by such clubs as the Merchants’ Club, the Commercial Club, with reference to such subject matters as municipal appoint- ments, and things of that sort, we al- ways receive the same answer; you can- not go down with anything that does not meet with the same consideration; it is not merely radical legislation, it is not merely the things that are political in their character, but matters that are of interest to the great mass of people, keeping them stirred up — it is the same with each and every proposition, you go down there and it is the same thing, whether it is as simple as A, B and C, the members of the legislature say they will not give all of their time to exam- ining the affairs of this city; I believe they are disinterested, and I think that every disinterested member of the legis- lature will welcome a chance to vote on a proposition which gives to Chicago the right to legislate on local municipal af- fairs, and reserving to the state the right to regulate all those things. I believe in the adoption of Mr. Jones’ amendment, without Mr. O’Donnell’s amendment, and the subsequent adoption of the resolution No. 2 — I believe that those things will, as Professor Merriam has said, start us in a fair way to get what this Convention was called together to get. THE CHAIRMAN: The question be- fore the house is the adoption of Mr. O’Donnell’s motion to strike out of Mr. Jones’ motion the words, “and the gen- eral laws of the state. ’ ’ MR, O’DONNELL: I ask for a roll call upon that, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN : The Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — O ’Donnell — 1. Nays — Badenoch, Beebe, Beilfuss, Bennett, Brosseau, Brown, Carey, Church, Clettenberg, Crilly, Dever, Dixon, G. W. ; Eckhart, B. A.; Eckhart, J. W.; Erick- son, Fisher, Graham, Guerin, Hunter, Jones, Kittleman, Linehan, Lundberg, MacMillan, McCormick, McGoorty, Mc- Kinley, Merriam, Owens, Paullin, Pen- darvis, Rainey, Raymer, Robins, Shana- han, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Sunny, Taylor, Thompson, Yopicka, Walker, Werno, White, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer —48. During roll call: MR. DEVER: Mr. Chairman, I in- tended to vote aye but I am so convinced now by the arguments I have heard that my views are changed and I will vote no. December 13 . 293 1906 M$. BEILFUSS: Mr. Chairman, I wish to change my vote from aye to no. MR. CHURCH: Mr. Chairman, I de- sire to be recorded as voting no. THE CHAIRMAN: Aldermen Beil- fuss changes his vote from aye to no ; Mr. Church votes no. THE SECRETARY: Beilfuss no; Church no. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon Mr. O’Donnell’s motion to strike out, the yeas are one, the nays are forty-eight, and the motion is lost. The next ques- tion is Mr. Jones’ substitute, which the Secretary will read. The Secretary read the resolution as hereinbefore printed. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman? THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shepard. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman, in a sense I think Mr. O ’Donnell was right in his motion to strike out the general laws, but I did not vote for it because I believed in the limitations to be placed on the legislative powers of the General Assembly. With this clause in, as I take it, there certainly are some limita- tions upon the general powers of the City Council. When we say its powers shall be subject to the general laws of the state that means, as I take it, all of the laws of the state or all of the laws to be enacted hereafter by the General Assembly. There are no laws that I know of that the General Assembly could pass but what are general laws, with the limita- tion only that they shall apply generally upon the class — or shall be limited to ap- ply upon the general class to which they refer. But we are stating now the gen- eral proposition to be referred to the drafters of this proposed law, and the intention of this is to give that unlim- ited power to the legislative branch of our municipality which, in my judgment, it is unwise to give, and I ask the gentle- men of this Convention to pause a mo- ment and ask themselves what power the City Council of the City of Chicago has not had in the past or obtained, or is now obtaining adequate to the needs of the City of Chicago. Take our special assessment laws granted to the city under the general laws of the state. Has any one suggested that they are not adequate to the needs of the city; yet it has within it those safe and sane limitations that require uniformity and equality of burdens. Take our school laws; has any one agi- tated that the legislature has not ade- quately provided for the City of Chi- cago in our school laws? True, w 7 e an- ticipate adding to those laws in this Convention, but the legislature, so far as we know, stands ready and has stood ready to meet every demand made by the City of Chicago for a safe and rea- sonable law. The legislature has so far as I know, met the demands of the City of Chicago. True, it has met them conservatively, but we must remember that there has never been a united demand. We have our Mueller bill, we have other measures granted us from time to time as we pre- sented those demands to the General As- sembly. What is there that we asked, or that we need under this unlimited dele- gation to the City Council? What specific thing do we want that we cannot get without this unlimited authority? Not one single item in these broad discus- sions has been mentioned, so far as my recollection goes. There may come things that we need but we can get them as they arise; as they come into being. Is there any- thing existing now that we cannot enumerate in this charter? None has been suggested in this discussion. I contend, Mr. Chairman and gentle- men, that it is wiser and better for the City of Chicago that with the knowledge which is before it now, to set down in December 13 294 1906 the charter the powers to be exercised by the City Council, and not to grant to the City Council that unlimited power, be- cause forsooth, some time in the future we may want some one thing that we cannot now anticipate. THE CHAIRMAN : The question is upon the adoption of Mr. Jones’ resolu- tion as a substitute for Mr. Vopicka’s motion to substitute the first alternative to No. 1 for No. 2, and the Secretary will read the resolution and proceed to call the roll. MR. SNOW : Mr. Chairman, before that is done I would like to ask one question THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Snow. MR. SNOW: As I understand Mr. Fisher to say in his first remark that it was his understanding of this alternative that in case it was adopted it would en- able the City Council to add to or take from the charter as framed by the legis- lature at this time, without any further reference to the legislature for the power to do that. Is that a correct statement? MR. FISHER: Not without the limi- tations that I put on it, though, Mr. Snow. It means exactly as Professor Merriam has explained in detail. I un- derstand that the drafters of this char- ter, will, as he has stated, draft it with those provisions of exactly the kind and character he has enumerated. This is merely a general restriction and it has to do with local municipal affairs and that they will define that in appropriate lan- guage. We are now discussing a general resolution. MR. SNOW : As I understood your statement it was in effect that if this were adopted and put in the charter after the details w T ere worked out in accordance with the general proposition under dis- cussion at this time it would be pos- sible for the City Council to add to or take from the charter as it shall finally be granted it, without reference to the state legislature. Now, am I correct in that? MR. FISHER : Within the powers which the charter vests in the city; cer- tainly. MR. SNOW : Within the powers which the charter vests in the city? MR. FISHER: Certainly. MR. SNOW : Now, under that, would it be possible for the City Council, for ex- ample, after we shall accept the law and find in the revenue clause and the five per cent assessment clause — would it be possible for the City Council to change that? MR. FISHER : Under no circum- stances. MR. SNOW : That is what I was try- ing to get at. I wanted to understand that. MR. FISHER : Absolutely. I am us- suming that we will agree upon limita- tions and that that will be one of the things the city cannot change unless the legislature authorizes it to change it. MR. SHEPARD: What is to prevent it? THE CHAIRMAN: One at a time, please, Mr. Shepard. Mr. Fisher. MR. FISHER : That the charter will enumerate those things which cannot be changed. That says, subject to the limi- tations of the charter, and now we will pick out the things and we will reverse the process mentioned by Mr. Shanahan and Mr. Shepard. MR. SNOW: Then your original statement must have been rather broader than you intended it to be. MR. FISHER: It certainly was not intended to be as broad as you under- stood it. MR. SNOW: They could add to, but could not take from, under the restric- tions imposed upon them by the charter. MR. FISHER: Absolutely not. MR. SNOW : That is my understand- ing. MR, FISHER: I believe in putting December 13 295 1906 in certain restrictions and Senator Jones’ resolution said, it shall have the power, subject to the provisions of this charter, and I assumed that the provisions of this charter among other things will say that we fix a limit and that this limit cannot be changed except by the state; that we will expressly provide that limit and then it will be subject to that provision. MR. SNOW : I was anxious to see whether you had the same idea that I had. THE CHAIRMAN: One at a time, gentlemen. Mr. Shepard, do you desire to speak again on the subject? MR. SHEPARD: I just desire to ask Mr. Fisher a question: What is there under this — if we adopt this whole reso- lution — what is there that the City Council cannot change? Is there any- thing? MR, FISHER: There is. I will tell you exactly, it is subject tp the provi- sions of this charter. MR. SHEPARD: Of this resolution? MR. FISHER: It is subject to the provisions of this charter. MR. SHEPARD: You are anticipat- | ing what we may do in the future on some limitations. Supposing we do not include those limitations. MR. FISHER: If we do not want to limit it, then it will not be in the char- ter. MR. SHEPARD: Then the City Council, under this rule, could change the rate of taxation and of assessments. MR. FISHER: Mr. Shepard, if this Convention THE CHAIRMAN: If the house will give unanimous consent to both the gen- tlemen to rediscuss the question they can continue; otherwise Senator Jones has the floor. MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the question Mr. Shepard and Mr. Snow have put. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there unani- mous consent? (Cries of “yes.”) MR. JONES: That is this: That where there is a limitation placed in this charter— for instance the five per cent limitation; I understand that that can- not be changed except by a referendum of the people of the City of Chicago. MR, FISHER: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: For what pur- pose does Mr. Fisher rise? MR, FISHER : I rise to address the Chair and house. I rose before be- cause I was asked to answer a specific question. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, but for what purpose do you rise? MR. FISHER: I would like to speak to the motion. THE CHAIRMAN: Have you spoken upon this question? MR, FISHER: Not at all. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fisher has the floor. MR. FISHER: Now, Mr. Chairman, I shall occupy the floor for one moment; I merely want to answer Mr. Shepard’s question. We are going to adopt the provision that, subject to such limitations as we put in this charter, the city shall have the right to pass local legislation on matters of local municipal concern and then we are going to pick out the limi- tations we want to put in ; and I am as- suming we are going to # put in those particular limitations upon which I as- sume we are all agreed. We cannot pick them out now, but we are going to pick them out later. Now, if this was carried, as was said by tfie Chair and Mr. O’Donnell and in some of the resolutions which have been deferred, if this was carried, it has been explained several times that that action is to be taken. Now, that is an answer to the first part. Now, second part: Mr. Shepard said ho had not heard anybody pick out any particular thing that the city wanted which it did not have. Now, I don’t want to take up all the December 13 296 1906 rest of the time of this Convention, all the rest of the time the Convention is going to sit by enumerating them all, but it has been said over and over again by everybody who has spoken that there ■was no difference of opinion among us as to our desire to get power to legislate, and therefore, no such enumeration was given. We can enumerate a list here that would take the Secretary from now until tomorrow morning to read. There are all sorts of things — the very ques- tion Professor Merriam has referred to, not to go further, the question of li- cense is one of them. We had to go to the last session of the legislature and Work for a certain proposition we did not get and which we were denied. The City Council passed an amendment to the General Cities and Villages Act, and we went down to the legislature and got it passed in a modified form, a part of it. I do not want to take up all the sec- tions they did not pass, but there were any quantity of them. At the last ses- sion of the legislature we asked for some law regarding the primaries in the City of Chicago, and we did not get any. We got a state primary law and the City of Chicago was eliminated, and we haven’t got any direct primary law in the City of Chicago and it is simply because the members of the legislature did not have time, or were otherwise indisposed to give us that law. There are tw T o or three things, and I could go on ad infinitum. We all know them. They were not enumerated sim- ply because nobody thought it was neces- sary to mention them. MR. O’DONNELL: I want to sug- gest this point now, so that it may be a matter of record here; it may be use- ful afterwards, and this is thus: The constitutional amendment passed by the General Assembly and adopted by the people of the City of Chicago has lib- erated us here in Chicago from the gen- eral laws in this state and said that what could only be done heretofore by general laws, now can be done by local and special laws peculiar to the City of Chi- cago. By the adoption of this resolu- tion as it is now before this body we recognize again that we do not w r ant to take advantage of the local and special laws that we can enact here for the City of Chicago, but that the legislature must, under the constitutional amendment en- act them, but we want to drift ourselves back again over the general laws in this state that exist now and that can be en- acted in the future. That is all I have to say on the question, Mr. Chairman. MR. SHANAHAN: Mr. Chairman, we have heard a great deal this evening in regard to what the City of Chicago has been asking of the state legislature, and all the trouble they have been caus- ing the state legislature and how kind the state legislature has always been to the City of Chicago when the request had been made. We have had the constitu- tional amendment as adopted in 1904 read at this meeting this evening, and in plain language it simply means that the state legislature hereafter has the right to grant, special legislation for the City of Chicago. Heretofore, under the Constitution of 1870, the legislature had no right to grant spesial legislation; the legisla- tion had to be general and apply to all parts of the state. The advantages and disadvantages of article 7 have been threshed out here this evening and I will not go into it at all. I am merely going to call the attention of this Convention to this fact: That the passage or defeat of your charter will depend upon section 7, and I question whether any charter will stand a ghost of a show in the Illinois legislature with section 7, with alternative No. 1 included in it. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the amend- ment — December 13 297 1906 MR. YOPICKA: I wish to say I ac- cept the amendment of Senator Jones. MR. JONES: Will you read it, Mr. Chairman ? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, let the Secretary read Mr. Jones’ amendment. The Secretary read Mr. Jones’ resolu- tion as hereinbefore printed. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the adop- tion of the substitute the Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Badenoch, Beebe, Beilfuss, Bennett, Brosseau, Brown, Carey, Clet- tenberg, Crilly, Dever, Dixon, G. W. ; Eckhart, B. A.; Eckhart, J. W. ; Fisher, Graham, Guerin, Hunter, Jones, Kittle- man, Linehan, Lundberg, MacMillan, McCormick, McGoorty, McKinley, Mer- riam, Owens, Pendarvis, Rainey, Raymer, Robins, Smulski, Snow, Sunny, Taylor, Thompson, Yopicka, Walker, Werno, White, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 43. Nays — Church, Erickson, O’Donnell, Shanahan, Shepard— 5. THE CHAIRMAN : Upon the motion to adopt, the ayes are 43, and the noes are 5, and Mr. Jones’ substitute is adopted. That disposes of Mr. Vopicka’s motion, and it would seem to dispose of the entire chapter. MR. JONES: It does not dispose ol No. 2, does it? THE CHAIRMAN: No, sir; it dis- poses of No. 1 and the alternative to No. 1, I think, Mr. ; yes, that is correct. MR. DIXON, G. W. : Doesn’t it dis pose of No. 2, Mr. Chairman? THE CHAIRMAN: It disposes or No. 2. Mr. Jones moved the adoption of No. 2 — the record is here — and Mr. Vopicka moved to substitute the first al- ternative to No. 1 for No. 2. Then Mr^ Jones presented a matter which was re- ceived by the Chair, the Clerk tells me, which Mr. Jones moved as a substitute for both resolutions. That is what the record shows, and that would appear to I dispose of No. 1, alternative to No. 1, and No. 2. MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I move we adopt No. 2. The first paragraph of No. 2 is simply complementary, (read- ing), “the specification of particular powers shall never be construed as a limitation upon the general powers granted by the charter,” and we can, adopt No. 2 as supplementary to the matter which has just been carried. MR. VOPICKA: I move we adjourn. THE CHAIRMAN: We will have to dispose of this subject first. Senator Jones moves the adoption of No. 2 as qualified by the substitute which was just adopted. MR. DIXON, G. W.: Will Mr. Jones please explain, then, the difference be- tween No. 2 and the motion we have just carried ? THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jones. MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, do not think there is very much difference; the first part of No. 2 says that the spe- cification of particular powers shall never be construed as a limitation upon the general powers granted by the charter. I think the Court might hold that we have already indicated .that, but it seems to me by passing No. 2 we remove any question, upon that point and it cannot be but supplementary to the motion which has just been carried. MR. BENNETT : Mr. Chairman, we have just passed No. 1, which gives us certain powers. Then we have passed a certain resolution which says w r e have all the remaining powers which the legis- lature has to give us. Now, I do not think w T e need any more to make it clear. We get the full power. MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman, I think that there is a point still uncov- ered in regard to No. 2. The courts have, as Professor Merriam has already pointed out, in passing upon the powers of municipalities, strictly construed those powers, and any power not given ex- December 13 298 1906 pressly is denied, and it is one of the « things to which Mr. Wilson called our at- tention in the committee and that cer- tainly should be in the charter. That in construing this charter the enumera- tion of particular powers shall never be construed as a limitation upon general powers. ME. BENNETT: That would be so if we were to have a complete grant of powers to do as we pleased? MR. FISHER : Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentlemen in the gallery will please maintain silence. MR. FISHER : That is true. We are going to enumerate certain specific things, so that as a rule of construction it is entirely proper, and not only proper, but in my judgment it would be unsafe not to adopt it. It is entirely proper and it might be necessary for safety of con- struction to put this rule of construction into the charter. It is a legal proposition and it seems to me that it should receive attention. For instance, the Supreme Court of the state has held that the legislature has all of the powers not prohibited to it by the constitution, but that that is not the rule with regard .to a municipality. A municipality has no powers unless they are expressly conferred, and we should have both the direct meaning of the power and the negative of the power that failure to enumerate them shall not be an exclusion. It can do no harm. And when we get into court it will do a great deal of good. MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I should like to withdraw my motion and move the adoption of the first part of No. 2, reading as follows: “The specification of particular powers shall never be construed as a limitation upon the general powers granted by the char- ter. ’ ’ MR. SNOW : Now, Mr. Chairman — THE ( HAIRMAN: Alderman Snow. MR. SNOW: I am very firm in the conviction as expressed by Mr. Fisher that we should adopt No. 2 if for no other reason than that it would be an interpretation of No. 1, if the matter gets into court. But I desire to offer as a substitute for the motion made by Senator Jones the adoption of all of No. 2 as amended by the amendment which I now offer. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read Alderman Snow’s amendment. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Snow: 2. The specification of particular powers shall never be construed as a limitation upon the general powers granted by the charter ; it being in- tended to grant and bestow upon the City of Chicago all the powers of mu- nicipal government which can constitu- tionally be delegated to it by the legislature, and which are not expressly prohibited to it by this charter, or by the constitution of the state ; and are not in conflict with any general law of the state. MR. SNOW : Now, Mr. Chairman the only difference between Section 2 as printed, and Section 2 as I offer it there is, that it is intended to clear up what difficulty might grow out of the wording of the printed paragraph. In the printed paragraph it says it shall exercise such powers which are not expressly prohibited to it by this charter or some general law of the state. That would undoubtedly be read in, “Not prohibited by some gen- eral law of the state.” Now, I want it to appear that it shall have such powers as are not prohibited by the charter or prohibited by the constitu- tion, and that it shall not exercise pow- ers in conflict with any general state law. * THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard Alderman Snow’s substitute to Aider- man Jones’ motion. Are you ready for the question? THE CHAIRMAN: All those in December 13 299 1906 favor will signify by saying aye; op- posed no. Yeas — Badenoch, Beebe, Brossean, Brown, Church, Clettenberg, Crilly, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Erickson, Fisher, Graham, Guerin, Hunter, Jones, Kittleman, Lundberg, MacMillan, Mc- Cormick, MeGoorty, McKinley, Mer- riam, Owens, Paullin, Rainey, Raymer, Robins, Snow, Sunny, Taylor, Young — 31. Nays — Beilfuss, Bennett, Carey, De- ver, Linehan, O’Donnell, Shepard, Smulski, Thompson, Walker, Werno, White— 12. (During roll call.) MR. DEVER: Mr. Chairman, I am not clear as to just how I ought to vote on that. Out of an abundance of pre- caution and feeling that the Council ought not to have the right to pass certain laws that will be in conflict with certain laws that now exist, I vote no. MR. SHANAHAN: I can’t vote either way. I am against the amend- ment and substitute both. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon Alderman Snow’s substitute to Senator Jones’ motion, the yeas are 31, and the nays 12. The motion is carried. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the concluding chapter of the section. Number 3. The Secretary read No. 3 at page 52. MR. O’DONNELL: I move its adoption. MR. McGOORTY : I move that we give further consideration to that question. I think the paragraph should be amended, and that we should give more consideration to it than we can at this late hour. THE CHAIRMAN: Your motion is to defer? MR. McGOORTY: To postpone con- sideration. When is the next meeting? THE CHAIRMAN: To-morrow night. MR. RAYMER: There must be Borne i bJdJj V misunderstanding as to the length of time we were to spend at our evening sessions. My recollection is that the time was set from 7:30 to 10:00. Am I wrong or right on that? A VOICE: 9:30. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair does not remember any set time. It seems to me that as we have only one para- graph left in this section, it occurs to me that we might as well finish it. THE SECRETARY: 7:30 to 10:00. THE CHAIRMAN: 7:30 to 10:00 is what the rule says. MR. RAYMER: I want to call the attention of the convention to the fact that we did not convene this evening till about ten minutes to eight. THE CHAIRMAN: Correct, sir. MR. RAYMER: If we are to follow the rule as laid down in this conven- tion I think we should get here on time and have the roll call at 7:30. MR. FISHER: I quite approve of that. MR. BENNETT: I do not think this motion should be approved without some consideration. There are certain matters in this ordinance that we should not pass on at such an hour hur- riedly, especially such matters as re- late to orders, and which, more or less, affect the administration of the city affairs, and not a passive ordinance. This is a cumbrous provision and it should not be passed in its present con- dition. The rules of the council now require that new matter presented to the Council must be given to a commit- tee, unless the rules are suspended, and as far as I am concerned I think important proposals should lay over. Almost invariably it has to lay over under the present rules of the Coun- cil. This charter, however, is giving the city broad powers which we are now attempting to restrict, under the proposition for the passage of this num- ber 2 as printed. December 13 300 1906 ME. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, for the reasons Alderman Bennett has stated, and for the additional reason that a provision of this kind rs a limitation — THE CHAIEMAN : Speak louder, please. ME. SNOW: For the additional rea- son that a limitation of this kind is a limitation of the power of a legisla- tive body to make its own rules, I shall certainly vote against the passage of this ordinance. Now, if we argue, as we have done to-night, that we wish to have a home rule charter, and then adopt a provision which feays the legis- lative body we are creating shall not be allowed to make its own rules, and handle its own resolutions, it strikes me as ridiculous. As a matter of fact, a proposition of this kind should come either by a vote or by a rule, and should not be governed by a provision in the charter. ME. FISHEE: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIEMAN: Alderman Snow, have you — A MEMBEE: Mr. Chairman, may I ask what the motion is? THE CHAIEMAN: The motion was to adopt it. ME. FISHEE: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me we might as well have a direct vote on this. I think the majority of the Convention, at any rate, will be op- posed to putting that provision in the charter. THE CHAIEMAN: Will the gentle- men of this convention wait just a mo- ment, and we will be through? We will have a vote in a minute, and then adjourn. ME. FISHEE: Alderman Snow has raised the real objection. We have a rule which operates now in the Council that it requires a two-thirds majority. Well, I believe that rule should be maintained. I see no reason to change that. It seems to me it is a matter for the City Council to decide, either by vote or in the rules. ME. McGOOETY : Mr. Chairman, with the consent of my seconder, I withdraw my motion. ME. SNOW : I make a motion to strike out section 3. ME. McGOOETY: I would like to alter or amend section 3 as it now stands. THE SECEETAEY: By Mr. Mc- McGoorty: Amend paragraph 3 of sec- tion 7 so that said section shall read as follows: 3. No ordinance, order or resolution shall be passed finally on the day it is introduced, except in mat- ters of public health, or public safety, or emergency, and except by a vote of three-fourths of all the members of the city council. THE CHAIEMAN: With the with- drawal of Mr. McGoorty’s amendment the matter stands before the house on Mr. O’Donnell’s motion to adopt. To that there is an amendment, and the Secretary will read it. THE SECEETAEY: By Mr. Dever: Amend substitute offered by striking out the words 11 order and resolution.” ME. O’DONNELL: I accept the amendment. ME. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that is the exact language, at least, only a little different language. It is imposing a limitation on a body which we have created, and which we are asking large powers for, by making this rule. THE CHAIEMAN: Are you ready for the question? ME. McGOOETY: Mr. Chairman, one objection that has been urged against the home rule charter is that a city council may on any Monday flight pass some law which will be of great interest and perhaps of great det- riment to the people of this city. And it is to prevent any such possibility, which may be remote, that the City Council any evening, on the introduc- tion of any important measure, can p\ss that ordinance; so that it is only December 13 301 1906 following other city charters that this is a check upon the City Council in the interests of the public, that there shall be no ordinance passed unless it is a niatter of emergency, or unless it is a matter of public health or safety. I think it is a wise limitation on the \ powprs of the Council. MR. BEEBE: Mr. Chairman, the constitution of the State of Illinois provides I believe, that the legislature cannot pass a bill, save one that has been read, on three successive - — or 1 three different days; and it seems to me that there should be some very strong provision limiting the powers of the City Council in passing on matters the same night they are introduced. MR. LINEHAN : • It seems to me if motions are sprung on the City Coun- cil that there is already a provision that the rules can be suspended for the purpose of passing on special matters. If for nothing else than that it should be passed in its present form. MR. O’DONNELL: It is the great strength of the charter; it will be looked upon as a safety valve by the people of the city, and that will help your charter to pass through; it also i will be an object lesson to the legisla- \ ture if there is such a provision in the charter. One of the arguments to be / advanced against the charter in the legislature, I predict, will be that un- i less there is a provision of this ehar- I acter, that the City Council has too much power, and it will give away the city in one night session. Consequent- ly I think this is a wise provision, and I hope it will be put in. MR. SNOW: I would like with the consent of the Convention, although I have spoken once, to make one state- ment. THE CHAIRMAN: Alderman Snow. MR. SNOW: I want to call the at- tention of the members of the Conven- tion to this fact: That in this char- I ter, as we are adopting it, we provider^ that the provisions of the charter are the present charter, except as modi- fied, if that charter shall prevail. And one of the provisions of that charter, which will not be modified if we strike/' this out is, that no report of a commit- tee shall be considered on the night in which it is brought in if two meih- bers of the council object. Now that certainly is quite as dras- tic a rule as there is any necessity for in any legislative body. That prevails, and continues to prevail, if we do not pass something here which is in con- flict with it. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? MR. BENNETT: I hope the mem- bers of the Convention will bear in mind the fact that most of the orders passed on the evening in which they are presented are purely administra- tive. Again and again matters requir- ing action at once are brought up, at the council meeting. They are un- avoidable. If a provision is inserted in this charter of this kind it will sim- ply tie the hands of the council. It has occurred again and again. It sim- ply won ’t do. I have no objection to any kind of alteration of the rule you may adopt. I do not think it will al- ter the charter with reference to or- dinances. MR. DEVER: In my experience I have never yet heard of an order be- ing introduced in one night and passed that night, that was inimical to the best interests of the city. The only abuse of that power that might arise would be under some special order, and that is a very limited quantity now. However, it is extremely rare that any- thing is passed that has any importance at all on the night it is introduced. Sometimes very, very important mat- ters are called up for attention by the Mayor, -or by the heads of the various departments, that require prompt ac- December 13 302 1906 tion at the hands of the council. I think I will move that the word “ or- der’ ’ in the resolution be stricken from number 3. THE CHAIRMAN : Is that con- curred in? Upon that the Secretary will call the roll. Read the section and the substitute. MR McGOORTY: I am willing to consent to Mr. Dever’s amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: What is Aider- man Dever’s amendment? MR. DEVER: Strike out the word 1 1 Order ’ ; in the resolution. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the motion and substitute. (The Secretary read accordingly.) MR. RAYMER: Mr. Chairman, it is within the recollection of every mem- ber of this body who has served in the Council that the Mayor has sub- mitted to the Council on many occas- ions ordinances which he has asked to have passed on some evening, without reference to a committee. I do not think that this rule for one moment should be adopted. The resolution of the Council, or, rather, the rule of the Council now, it seems to me, places all the restrictions upon that body that is necessary. And the charter, as it now exists, provides in a way for the pre- vention of important matters being passed the same night that they are presented. If two members of the Council call for a committee, that set- tles the matter. It cannot be passed on the same night. T do not think that we should cumber the charter with any such provision as you are attempting to do here to-night. You are tying the hands of the administration in doing so, and also the hands of the Council, that may be fatal to the best interests of the community. MR. CHURCH: The way the amend- ment has been read, it seems to me that it is absolutely safe, and does not take any authority from the Council. We should recognize the bearing of the word ‘ 1 emergency. , ’ It is left to the Council to decide what the emergency is. I think it should be passed. MR. BENNETT: The word emer- gency’ ^ always requires proof, of the emergency. It leaves the action in doubt, and not clear. MR. CHURCH: I ask the question. Does that prevent the Council deciding whether an emergency exists or not? THE CHAIRMAN: Upon Mr. Mc- Goorty’s motion as amended by Mr. Dever — if there is no further discus- sion — MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman, if we are to have a serious vote on this mo- tion and amendment I think some change is required. I do not like this three-fourths. It seems to me that the rule of the council is that it requires two-thirds; and two-thirds is plenty; and that is all the gentlemen will ac- complish who are in favor of it. I move as an amendment, if it be permissible, in the rule, that the three-fourths be altered to two-thirds. MR. SNOW : That leaves it as it is now. THE CHAIRMAN: Just one minute. MR. McCORMICK: It seeems to me that it makes the question ridiculous. If this matter is of sufficient import- ance to be debated on, let us debate on it; or else it is a matter of so litttle importance that it does not deserve the attention that it has already re- ceived. We have had several opinions here, as to how this matter should finally be settled. Let us postpone it. To my mind it is a matter almost im- material on account of the words you put into it relating to health, public | safety, and emergencies, because any I ordinance passed with words like that I in the charter will be open to attack in the courts. December 13 303 1906 ME. SMULSKI: I believe that if the two words “ order or resolution ’ ’ be left out of the original proposition it would then meet with the approval of the convention. It would be exactly the same as the rule of the council now, and I move as a substitute that the original resolution as printed omit the words “ order or resolution,’ ’ be adopted, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you desire to leave the three-fourths in there? MR. SMULSKI: No; two-thirds. THE CHAIRMAN: Reject the three- fourths? MR. SMULSKI: I wish to have it amended to two-thirds. THE CHAIRMAN: That is: “No ordinance shall be passed finally on the day it is introduced except when ap- proved by an affirmative vote of two- thirds of all the members of the city council ’ ’? MR. SMULSKI: That is my substi- tute for the whole. MR. SNOW: There is no objection to that, if the two-thirds rule is left there, because you leave in there what is now the rule of the city council./ THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? Those who vote aye. Those opposed. IHs carried. The Con- vention now sta nds a dioufned till 7 :30 Friday night. And the Convention stood adjourned to meet Friday, December 14, 1906, at 7:30 o’clock p. m. Secretary. December 13 304 1906 MEMORANDA. These memoranda indicate the various matters adopted by the Convention. (See page 50 and succeeding pages of the proceedings. II. CONSOLIDATION. 1. The corporate authorities existing at present for the government of the park systems of Chicago shall be abol- ished and the management of the parks shall become a department of the city government. 2. The administration of the public school system of the city of Chicago and of the Public Library shall con- stitute departments of the city govern- ment. III. THE MAYOR. 1. The charter shall continue sub- stantially the provisions of the pres- ent laws regarding the qualifications and executive functions of the mayor. 2. The charter shall continue the provisions of the present laws regard- ing the relation of the mayor to the city council. Resolved, that it is the sense of this Convention that a clause be inserted in the charter designating a city official who shall act as mayor during the ab- sence or inability of the mayor. First Alternative to 2 b. The mayor shall have a right to a seat in the city council, but shall have no vote. He shall have the right to speak and present messages and intro- duce measures subject to the general rules of procedure of the city council. Second Alternative to 2: The charter shall continue the pres- ent provisions of the law regarding the relation of the mayor to the city coun- cil, except that he shall not preside at the meetings of the city council, but the city council shall elect its own presiding officer from its members. 3. The veto power of the mayor shall be as now prescribed by law. 4. The term of office of the mayor shall be four years. IY. ELECTIONS. First alternative to 1: Elective city officers shall be nominated under a sys- tem of direct primaries, with appropri- ate provision for independent nomina- tions by petition. 2. The names of all the nominees for each office shall be printed on the ballot under the title of the office for which they are candidates, in alphabeti- cal order, and the designation of the party, if any, to which they belong. The following resolution on the sub- ject of suffrage for women is still pend- ing: 3. The charter shall contain no pro- vision for conferring the right of suf- frage on women. 4. a. The election of all city offi- cers, including those for the municipal court, shall be held in the spring. Pro- vided, however, that judges of the mu- nicipal court shall be elected at a time when no offices other than judicial are to be filled. 5. Candidates and political commit- tees shall be required to make sworn statements of receipts and expenditures of any campaign for nomination or election. V. CIVIL SERVICE. 1. All departments of the city gov- ernment shall be under an appropriate civil service law. December 13 305 1906 Alternative to 1: a. The civil service law shall apply to the department of public parks. The application of the civil service law to the department of public parks shall not operate in and of itself to dis- charge the present employees. b. The civil service law shall apply to the municipal court. The Bailiff and Chief Clerk of the Municipal Court shall be subject to re- moval by a majority of the judges of the court, after a hearing, for incompe- tency, inefficiency, malfeasance or mis- feasance in office. The reasons for such removal shall be specified in writing and shall be spread at large upon the records of the court. Section 2 of Civil Service, together with resolution printed in the proceed- ings of December 6, have been referred to the Committee on Municipal Elec- tions, Appointment and Tenure of Office, with instructions to report to the Con- vention within ten days. YT. THE CITY COUNCIL. The charter shall provide for redis- tricting the city into seventy wards, of compact and contiguous territory, and with an equitable distribution of area and population, as soon as possible after the adoption of this charter, one aider- man to be elected from each ward. The city shall thereafter be redis- tricted by the City Council every ten years after the federal census has been taken, but no more than seventy wards shall be made. 2. The compensation of aldermen shall be at the rate of thirty-five hun- dred dollars per annum. The term of office of aldermen, shall be four years. The aldermen shall be elected at the same time as the mayor. VII. POWERS OF THE CITY COUN- CIL IN GENERAL. 1. The powers of the city council shall be as now prescribed by law, ex- cept as modified by this charter. The city council shall have all powers of local legislation which can, under the con- stitution, be vested in a municipality; subject to the constitution of the state, the provisions of the charter, and the general laws of the state. 2. The specification of particular powers shall never be construed as a limitation upon the general powers granted by the charter; it being in- tended to grant and bestow upon the City of Chicago all the powers of mu- nicipal government which can constitu- tionally be delegated to it by the legislature, and which are not expressly prohibited to it by this charter, or by the constitution of the state; and are not in conflict with any general law of the state. 3. No ordinance shall be passed finally on the day it is introduced, except when approved by an affirmative vote of two- thirds of all the members of the city council. December 13 306 1906 Resolutions offered from the floor of the Convention, but not acted upon. BY ME. EOSENTHAL. As an amendment to Chapter IV. en- titled ELECTIONS. By adding the following proposition numbered 6: 6. The only elective city officers (not including aldermen and municipal judges) shall be the Mayor and City Treasurer. The City Treasurer shall be ex-officio city collector. BY ME. BENNETT: XXII. 5. SECTION Nothing in this act shall be construed to modify, impair or affect or to confer upon the city coun- cil power to pass any ordinance modi- fying, impairing or conflicting with the provisions of Section 18 of an act en- titled “An act to provide for the an- nexation of cities, incorporated towns and villages or parts of same to cities, incorporated towns and villages ’ ’ ap- proved April 25th, 1889, or to any pro- vision of any law of Illinois relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors or creat- ing or defining criminal offenses or relat- ing to the prosecution and punishment thereof, nor shall any amendment or addition be made to the charter of the City of Chicago, except by the General Assembly, by which this section, or any part thereof shall, directly or indirectly, be abrogated, repealed or annulled. BY. ME. SHEPAED: Eesolved, That in any act providing for the formation and disbursement of the police pension fund the following provision be incorporated: That the members of the police de- partment to be included in the bene- fits of such pension fund shall be as follows: The General Superintendent of Po- lice, Assistant General Superintendent of Police, Inspectors, Captains, Lieu- tenants, Sergeants, Patrolmen, Patrol Drivers, Superintendent of Horses, Su- perintendent of Construction, Superin- tendent Bureau of Identification, As- sistant Superintendent Bureau of Iden- tification, Secretary of the Police De- partment, Private Secretary to the Gen- eral Superintendent of Police, Police Custodian Stolen Property, Chief Clerk Secretary’s office, Clerk in Secretary’s office, Chief Clerk in Detective Bu- reau, Chief Operator, Assistant Chief Operator, Operators, Drillmaster, Chief Matron, Matrons, Feed Inspector, De- partment Printer, Vehicle Inspectors, Photographer, Assistant Photographer, Stenographers, Supply Drivers, Finger Print Expert and such other mem- bers as may hereafter be provided for by ordinance. BY ME. BENNETT: Resolved, that the present laws re- lating to firemen’s pensions be retained and included in the charter. BY MESSES WEENO AND EOSEN- THAL: Chapter 7, section 1, alternative 1. In addition to all the legislative powers now conferred upon it by the general cities and villages act and the amendments thereof, the charter shall vest in the city council the power to regulate the legal observance of the weekly day of rest, commonly called Sunday; and the sale of liquors by bona fide athletic, ch'aritable, edu- cational, fraternal, musical and social associations, corporations and societies at social gatherings, or entertainments conducted or held by them only; and in general all powers of local legisla- tion which may under the constitution be vested in a municipality. December 13 307 1906 SPECIAL ORDERS For Week Beginning Monday, December 10. SECTION X. — Revenue, at page 53. SECTION XVII.— Education, at page 56. PARAGRAPH 3.— Suffrage, at page 52. CORRECTIONS. MR. SHANAHAN: On page 92, first column : Line 13, insert word “ speak’ ’ instead of “come. ” MR. SHANAHAN: On page 101, second column: Line 22, after the word 1 1 then ’ ’ add ‘ 1 who shall . } ’ MR. SHEDD: On page 128, first column, second line, strike out “in a” and insert therefor : 1 1 eliminating the. * ’ Also, in the third line, after the word “paper, ” insert “but retaining the par- ty column. ’ ’ MR. POST : On page 130, second column, fifth line from bottom, sub- stitute the word “ constitutional ’ ’ for the word “ satisfactory . 1 } MR. SHEPARD: On page 134, first column, last paragraph, fifth line, strike out “that is, that all municipal officers and city officers, including the municipal court judges shall be elected in the spring” and insert therefor: “that is, that all city officers shall be elected in the spring at one and the same election, except the municipal court judges.” MR. SHANAHAN: On page 159, first column, next to last line, strike out “it along” and insert “about its passage. ’ f MR. WERNO: On page 161, left hand column, line 25, strike out the word “has” and insert in lieu thereof the word “have.” Also on page 161, right hand column, 13th line, strike out the words “to give” and insert in lieu thereof the words “who gives.” MR. LINEHAN: On page 162, first column, next to last line, strike out word “devoted” and insert “di- vorced.” Also same column, last line, strike out word “to” and insert “from.” Also, same page, second col- umn, first line, strike out “we are pro- posing” and insert “a proposal.” MR. POWERS: On page 166, sec- ond column, fourth, fifth and sixth lines, strike out “Well, can’t he do that without the consent of this Conven- tion?” and insert in lieu thereof “He cannot do that without the consent of this Convention . 1 ’ MR. SHANAHAN: On page 170, first colmun, fourth line, after the word “entrance” insert the following: “to the service protected by the law.” MR. PENDARYIS: Page 179, first column; strike out .entire line, and in- sert in lieu thereof: “that fact we put into the,” also, same page, same column, in fourth line from bottom, insert the word “meet” for “leave.” MR. VOPICKA: Page 214, second column, twelfth line of paragraph, strike out words “a movement” and insert “an improvement.” MR. PENDARVIS: Page 226, second column, line 24, change the word “po- sition” to “provision”; also, same page, same column, line 26, change the word “of” to “by.” December 13 308 1906 MR, VOPICKA: On page 226, sec- ond column, correct as follows: “Mr. Chairman. — If Mr. Rosenthal will change his amendment to read $3,500 minimum and $5,000 maximum, you will get men of more intelligence to seek the office; make it a minimum salary of $3,500 and a maximum of $5,000, and not more than that.” MR. LINEHAN: I would like to have inserted in the records at page 253, column 2, anywhere there, the fol- lowing paragraph, which was a part of Mr. Fisher’s speech, and was left out wholly, as follows : “ * * * Mr. Linehan, to speak plainly, is in sympathy with the present mayor, for this reason. He is willing that the term of office of the mayor should be four years, but objects to the aldermanic term being lengthened. I ask him if he would be of the same mind if he were opposed to the mayor, but was in sympathy with the city coun- cil, which had to seek re-election every two years.” MR. FISHER: I must object to the insertion of this language as being my exact language; that is not exactly what I stated. I think it does fairly state the sense of what was stated, but the remark which I made was that Mr. Line- han was in favor of the policies of the present mayor. I don ’t know whether he is in favor of the present mayor or opposed to the present mayor, but I do understand that he is in favor of the policies of the present mayor. PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER FRIDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1906 Cliinujii (Iluu'trr (fin uuntt inn Convened, December 12, 190S Headquarters 171 WASHINGTON STREET TELEPHONE MAIN 4877 Milton J. foreman chairman Alexander H. Revell, . . Vice-Chairman M. L. McKinley Secretary Henry Barrett Chamberlin. Asst. Secy December 14 311 1906 PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Regular Meeting, Friday, December 14, 1906 7:30 O’clock P. M., in the City Council Chamber OFFICIAL RECORD Published by authority of the Chicago Charter Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: The Convention will be in order. The Secretary will call the roll. Present — Foreman, Chairman, and Ba- ker, Beebe, Beilfuss, Bennett, Brown, Burke, Carey, Church, Clettenberg, De- ver, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eck- hart, J. W., Erickson, Fisher, Guerin, Hoyne, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Line- han, MacMillan, McCormick, McGoorty, McKinley, Merriam, O ’Donnell, Oehne, Owens, Paullin, Pendarvis, Powers, Ray- mer, Revell, Rinaker, Robins, Shanahan, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Taylor, Vopicka, Walker, Werno, White, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 49. Absent — Badenoch, Brosseau, Cole, Crilly, Ritter, Dixon, T. J., Eidmann, Fitzpatrick, Gansbergen, Graham, Haas, Harrison, Hill, Hunter, Lundberg, Pat- terson, Post, Rainey, Rosenthal, Sethness, Shedd, Sunny, Swift, Thompson, Wilson —25. THE CHAIRMAN : Quorum present. Are there any amendments or corrections to the minutes? They stand approved as the records of the last meeting, if there are none. Are there any commu- nications? MR. KITTLEMAN: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kittleman. MR. KITTLEMAN: I received the following communication through the mail today for the Charter Convention, signed by various citizens, and I ask that it be read and placed on file. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the resolution without the names. THE SECRETARY: To Chicago City Charter Delegates Assembled: We, the undersigned citizens of Chicago, do most respectfully request that your honorable body act favorably on the charter sec- tion proposed by the Chicago Law and Order League, thereby giving the sup- port of the State to our city in all mat- ters relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors. THE CHAIRMAN: The communica- December 14 312 1906 tion, without the names, will be entered in the record. MR. B. A. ECKHART: I desire to offer the following resolution, and ask to have it read. THE CHAIRMAN: Will the Secre- tary read the resolution? THE SECRETARY: “By Mr. B. A. Eckhart. No city officer or employee shall directly or indirectly ask for, de- mand or accept for his own use, or for the use of another, any free pass, frank, gratuitous service or discrimination, from any person or corporation holding or using any franchise, privilege or license granted by the city. But this prohibi- tion shall not extend to the furnishing of free transportation to police officers while on duty. The charter shall con- tain appropriate provisions for the en- forcement of this prohibition. ’ ’ THE CHAIRMAN: The matter will lay over until the proper head is reached. MR. B. A. ECKHART: That might be taken up when we reach section 16, paragraph 7, public utilities. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection the matter will be taken up when we reach the subject of public utilities. MR. BROWN : I have a resolution to offer. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read Senator Brown’s resolution. THE SECRETARY: “By Mr. Brown: Permission shall not be given to any person to retail any goods, fruits, or vegetables from a wagon or other { vehicle . 1 ’ THE CHAIRMAN : That matter will be taken up in order ; are there any other communications or resolutions? MR. O’DONNELL: I move that the late charter amendment be printed in bold-faced type in the proceedings of this meeting, so that every member of the Convention can have before him the full constitutional amendment under which we are attempting to draft this charter for the City of Chicago. THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any ob- jections to this resolution? If not, all those who favor it will signify by say- ing aye. Those opposed, no. The motion prevailed. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read section 8, powers of the City Council with regard to officers. The Secretary read page 53, section VIII. MR. BENNETT : We have already adopted that when we adopted the first section of the last paragraph. THE CHAIRMAN: When did we adopt that? MR. BENNETT : ‘ ‘ The powers of the City Council shall be as now prescribed by law, except as modified by this char- ter. ’ ’ THE CHAIRMAN: We had better dispose of this paragraph first. MR. BENNETT: I move that it be laid on the table as having been already adopted. N THE CHAIRMAN : Any discussion upon this question? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye; those op- posed, no. It is carried. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read number two. The Secretary read No. 2. MR. RA YMER : Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to offer as a substitute to that. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the amendment. THE SECRETARY: “By Mr. Ray- mer: Substitute the following for No. ^ of Section VIII: The office of City derk shall cease to be a charter office md the City Council shall have power by ordinance to provide for the method of choosing the City Clerk, and to pro- vide for the duty of the City Clerk. ’ ’ MR. RAYMER : I move its adoption. V.THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard this substitute read. The matter is before the house. A VOICE: Question. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- December 14 313 1906 vor of adopting the substitute signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. The substitute is adopted. That takes the place of No. 2. The Secretary will now read No. 3. The Secretary read No. 3. MR. JONES: Mr. Rosenthal offered a provision which is printed on page 152 of the record, which might be con- sidered at this time, which provides that the city treasurer shall be elected, and shall be ex officio city collector. As I understand, by the adoption of No. 2 the position of city treasurer shall be an elective office. THE CHAIRMAN: That provides that the city treasurer be elected as at present elected. MR. JONES: The additional question raised by Mr. Rosenthal’s resolution is that of making the city treasurer the city collector. I think it would be well to pass upon that at this time. I, there- fore, move that the last part of Mr. Ro- senthal ’s resolution, reading “The city treasurer shall be ex officio city col- lector,” be adopted. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read that portion of Mr. Rosen- thal’s resolution relating to the city treasurer. THE SECRETARY: Page 306, left- hand column, top of the page, under resolution offered from the floor of the Convention, but not acted upon, page 306, “By Mr. Rosenthal: The only elective city officers, not including mu- nicipal judges, shall be the mayor, the city treasurer, and the city treasurer shall be ex officio city collector.” MR. SHEPARD: I understand only the latter part of that resolution is be- fore the convention? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes; we have al- ready disposed of the part relating to municipal judges. MR. BENNETT: I have just one thought in this connection, and that is this, that the officer who receives I money should have someone to whom he | should report and turn the money over. I have thought some on this subject, and my personal opinion of it is that the office of the city treasurer should be retained, and also the office of the city collector for that reason. Unless you have someone to whom the collect- ing officer reports — as it is now, the city collector reports to the city treasurer as to all the funds that he collects, and in that way the comptroller is enabled to keep track of the money received. I think it would be a mistake to elim- inate one of these offices. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon Senator Jones’ motion to adopt the part of Mr. Rosenthal’s resolution which makes the city treasurer ex officio city collector. Are you ready for the question? MR. PENDARVIS: In the absence of Mr. Rosenthal, the chairman of the Committee on Elections, I might say that this question was discussed at some length in that committee. The first proposition made, I believe, was to con- solidate the office of the city treasurer and comptroller; but the opinion seems to prevail that those two offices should be kept separate, and that it would be much preferable if you were going to consolidate the offices of the city col- lector and city treasurer, and after some extended discussion that was the sense of the committee. There is no apparent reason why the city collector cannot be ex officio col- lector as the county treasurer is ex- officio collector, and thus do away with one office. That was the reason for the Committee on Elections, making the re- port that it did, and Mr. Rosenthal offering the resolution. THE CHAIRMAN: Any further dis- cussion upon the motion of Senator Jones? If not, all those in favor sig- nify by saying aye; those opposed, no. The Secretary will call the roll. Yeas— Beebe, Beilfuss, Brown, Carey, Church, Clettcnberg, Eckhart, B. A., December 14 314 1906 Eckhart, J. W., Hoyne, Jones, Kittle- man, Lathrop, Lineban, Oehne, Owens, Pendarvis, Revell, Robins, Smulski, Taylor, Yopicka, Walker, Young — 23. Nays — Baker, Bennett, Dever, Guerin, MacMillan, McGoorty, McKinley, Mer- riam, O’Donnell, Powers, Raymer, Rin- aker, Shanahan, Shepard, Snow, Werno, White, Wilkins, Zimmer — 19. (During roll call.) MR. BENNETT: What is the ques- tion before the convention? THE CHAIRMAN: Sir? MR. BENNETT: Will the Chair state the question? THE CHAIRMAN: The question is: The adoption of that portion of Mr. Rosenthal ’s resolution which makes the city treasurer ex officio city collector. Call the roll. MR. GUERIN : The gentleman on my right has caused me to change my vote. As I understand it here, the city collector simply turns over the money to himself. There is no check on him whatever, or on the city treasurer. Therefore, I vote no. I think there ought to be a check there. MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, I de- sire to change my vote from no to aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Judge Walker changes his vote from no to aye. THE SECRETARY: Walker, aye. THE CHAIRMAN : On the motion to make the city treasurer ex officio city collector, the yeas are 23 and the nays 19; and the motion is carried. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read No. 3. MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, I de- sire to give notice that I shall intro- duce a motion to reconsider on that. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion will be entered of record. THE SECRETARY: Page 53, No. 3. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, what will you do with this? MR. DEVER: Will you read the last sentence — the last clause? THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the last sentence. The secretary read as requested. MR. BENNETT: Under the charter as it now stands we have power to in- vestigate, but we have not the power to compel the attendance of witnesses. I therefore move the adoption of Sec- tion 3. It is apparently surplusage, but I move its adoption. MR. ROBINS: I move its adoption. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor signify the same by saying aye; those opposed, no. It is adopted, and the Secretary will read No. 9. The Secretary read No. 9. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the mo- tion, gentlemen? MR. SHEPARD : I move its adoption. MR. REVELL: Will somebody ex- plain what it means, Mr. Chairman? THE CHAIRMAN: It is a section containing the usual police powers as contained in charters usually. That is how I understand it. All those in favor signify in the usual way; opposed, no. It is adopted. The next is the subject of revenue, and ' that is a matter of special order. MR. SHEPARD: Under the rule hitherto adopted by this Convention, Chapter X on Revenue should stand over to be considered at a date to be here- after fixed by the Convention. I sug- gest, therefore, that it do stand over. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection it will stand over, as a spe- cial order. The Secretary will read No. 11, on indebtedness. THE SECRETARY read No. XI, as printed in the proceedings at page 54. MR. BENNETT: I move its adop- tion. THE CHAIRMAN: It is moved and seconded. Those in favor say aye; those opposed, no. The motion prevailed. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read No. XII, Expenditures. December 14 315 1906 The Secretary read No. XII, as it ap- pears in the proceedings at page 54. M^R. BENNETT: I move the adop- tion of the section. THE CHAIRMAN : Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the section is adopted. The Sec- retary will read No. 13. THE SECRETARY: Page 54, No. XIII : Property. THE CHAIRMAN: One at a time. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, this is a desirable provision. As it stands to- day if we desire to have an engine house or an engine site we are not able to get it. I move the adoption of paragraph 1, Section 13. THE CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen, you have heard the motion. Those in favor say aye; and those opposed, no. It is adopted. MR. WALKER : Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Alderman Bennett if that doesn ’t mean they can condemn property for any city purpose? MR. BENNETT: To my mind it does ; if it does not, I presume that is what it should mean. THE CHAIRMAN: I presume that is the intention of it. MR. SHEPARD: By assuming that, is there any objection to adding the word “city”? THE CHAIRMAN: You suggest adding the word “city,” before “pur- pose ”? MR. FISHER : Can it exercise powers of taxation for any other purpose than municipal purposes? I do not think they can. MR. SHEPARD: I move you, Mr. Chairman, that the word “city” be add- ed just preceding the word “purpose.” The city now has the right to levy taxes for other than city purposes. MR. FISHER: What purpose? MR. SHEPARD: For library pur- poses, for one thing; and for school pur- poses for another. MR. FISHER: Why should we have the power — MR. SHEPARD: Wait a minute. For school purposes, and for others. If we continue as we have before, there will be added park purposes also. MR. FISHER : That is what I sup- posed, Mr. Chairman — THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fisher. MR. FISHER : For what object is the distinction? We cannot condemn for park purposes; we cannot condemn for library purposes; we cannot condemn for school purposes. Now, we have power to condemn for two already. I do not see why we should exclude this? MR. SHEPARD: The reason that I make the motion at this time is that those rights are reserved under the pro- vision for the respective purposes. For instance: In school purposes the power to condemn is reserved there, and can be taken up any time. Then the drafter will draw a law that is consistent and precise. This leaves it open for any purpose. Furthermore, by putting in the word for 1 1 city ’ ’ purposes the object is that school purposes is not a city pur- pose and it cannot be made a city pur- pose. MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman, I do not like to get into a disagreement with the distinguished counsel, but have we not in the first section already adopted it? We have provided expressly that the School Board — the Board of Education — shall be a department of the City Gov- ernment. We have so said. We under- stand that is a legal constitution, and that it is what it is now. MR. SHEPARD: No, it is not now. MR. FISHER: It is in one sense, now. MR. SHEPARD: No, not in a legal sense. MR. FISHER: Yes, it is in a legal sense, with one exception. MR. SHEPARD: I would like to di- rect Mr. Fisher ’s attention to the fact that the Board of Education of the city, so far as it has to do with educational December 14 316 1906 matters, is an agency of the state; fol- lowing the precise limitations and direc- tions of the constitution of the state. When the City Council of this city levies a tax it does not act as agent of the city; or in its corporate capacity as officers of the city. But it acts as an agent of the state. ME. FISHEE: I think Mr. Shepard is correct in that statement. What hap- pens is, when you buy property the Board of Education presents a request to the City Council, and my recollection is it has to be acted upon by the City Council. Now, there is a resolution pend- ing here — I do not say it will be adopt- ed — there is a resolution pending that the Board of Education shall, under this charter, be made a department of the City Government ; and that there shall be a superintendent of education and . a superintendent of property— school prop- erty; a manager of school property. Now, if that should be adopted, and we have taken the power to condemn for school purposes out of this resolution, we are going to have to come back and do all that over again. Now, it seems to me that — I do not understand the distinction which is attempted to be cre- ated. The city, if it levies taxes as a city, ought to be authorized to condemn property for the purpose for which it levies taxes. At least, so it seems to me. I would like to understand what par- ticular function of municipal govern- ment for which we can now tax, counsel does not now wish to have the city vested with the power to condemn prop- erty. Certainly if we are going to have the park boards consolidated with the city, as proposed, we want to condemn for park purposes, and the city will then be condemning for park purposes, and then if we consolidate the Board of Education that will be true also of them. It seems to me there is an at- tempt at distinction here which ought not to be at this time. MB. PENDAEVIS: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIEMAN : Mr. Pendarvis. ME. PENDAEVIS: I would like to ask a question from some of the gen- tlemen, whether it is contemplated by this provision to confer any broader pow- ers than were given in the charter passed by the last general assembly upon this proposition? ME. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to say with reference to condemna- tion, that we have not the power to condemn an engine site or a police sta- tion site. The powers are limited to paragraph 89 of the Cities and Villages Act, and while we have power by con- demnation and otherwise to extend any street, alley or highway, etc., we have no power to condemn sites for various buildings, and we want that power and we ought to have that power. ME. PENDAEVIS: My recollection is, Mr. Chairman, that there was a sec- tion in the charter act recommended by the charter committee on state legislation at the last general assem- bly, and passed by that body, confer- ring upon the city the right to exer- cise the power of eminent domain; and, if I am not mistaken, that section was left in the act as passed, and is now part of the act adopted by the people. ME, SHPEAED: Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted to rise again to this question, I desire to say that my only purpose is to get into this section a legal proposition; Taking up Mr. Fisher’s idea, I think undoubtedly we were both working for the same end. My idea is to give the city the broadest possible power in the right of condemnation. If the park is consolidated with the city, it un- doubtedly will be a part of the city, and the library the same; and the con- stitution of the state excepts the schools, and that must be taken up un- der the section with which we deal with the school proposition. We will have to reserve that right to the City Coun- cil as an agency of the state to con- December 14 317 1906 demn for school purposes as heretofore and not to condemn for city purposes, so when we propose to make this read 1 1 The city may acquire property by purchase or condemnation for any city purpose for which it may exercise the power of taxation,” we give it its broadest possible power, which can be conferred under the constitution of the state; and there is no use of stating therein any purpose, any more than there would be a use for our saying the City Council may condemn property in Indiana, because it cannot do that. It cannot condemn property for any pur- pose. We cannot give it that power, and the legislature cannot confer that power. By adding this amendment, “for city purposes,” we give it its broadest pos- sible power, and the drafter of our charter will straighten out these tan- gles and other differences that exist between Mr. Fisher’s view or my own. MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman, I do not think THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pendarvis. MR. PENDARVIS: Mr. Chairman, I have before me the laws that were in the last charter act, and my recollec- tion that a clause of that kind was passed. It reads as follows: “The city may exercise the right of eminent domain by condemnation pro- ceedings in conformity with the pro- visions of the constitution and statute of the State of Illinois for the acquire- ment of property useful, advantageous or desirable for municipal purposes, and the procedure in such cases shall be as nearly as may be like that pro- vided for in an act entitled ‘An Act concerning Local Improvements, ap- proved June 14, 1897, in force July 1, 1897,’ as now or hereafter from time to time amended.” T am reading from the original draft of the charter act that was sent to the legislature by the City Council Commit- tee on State Legislation and adopted and submitted to a vote of the people, and by the people adopted. I move you, Mr. Chairman, the sub- stitution of the section just read for that now before the body. THE CHAIRMAN: Will you send it up here, please, so that the Secretary may read it? The Secretary will read the substitute. The Secretary re-read the section. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman? THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon the substitute, Mr. Bennett. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, if I understand the amendment right, it cuts off the right of purchase inde- pendent of a condemnation, and this is offered, as I understand it, as an amendment to Section 1. It cuts us out from the right of purchase by advertise- ment, as we do now. Sometimes we find that we get fair prices when we advertise for property, and at other times we are not able to acquire the exact property we want, except by pay- ing excessive costs. We desire the right to condemn such property, and, in my judgment, the paragraph printed is preferable to the one submitted by Mr. Pendarvis. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? The question is upon Mr. Pendarvis’ substitute. As many as favor it will signify by saying aye; opposed, no. The substitute is lost. THE CHAIRMAN : The next ques- tion is upon Mr. Shepard’s amendment to No. 1, concerning the word city. Do I understand that correctly? MR. ROBINS: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this is a general power, giving to the city the general power of condemnation. Any word you put in there will be a word used in the interpretation of that power. It will operate as a limitation, and instead of giving as broad power as possible, it will necessarily operate as a limitation. I do not know that it will be neces- sarily objectionable, but T cannot for December 14 318 1906 the life of me see that it should be at all desirable, and if it should happen that there should be some purposes other than city purposes for which the power of condemnation would be, de- sirable under the interpretation, under a limited interpretation of what city or municipal might be, it seems to me it might be quite advantageous. I, there- fore, vote that the amendment don’t prevail. ME. HOYNE: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hoyne. MR. HO.YNE: The very reason which Mr. Robins gives is the very rea- son I am in favor of Mr. Shepard’s motion. We want something specific. This thing of having everything gen- eral does not limit it, and that is what we want to know. If we are going to pass something here, we want to know what it is to cover. And Alderman Ben- nett has stated distinctly what he wants and what the City Council wants; they want the power to purchase, and that is what we want to give them. And we want to know for what purpose they in- tend to purchase. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of Mr. Shep- ard’s motion. MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fisher. MR. FISHER: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we are still keeping away from the point. The whole question is whether the definition of the purpose for which we wish the city vested with the power of eminent domain or pur- chase is that it shall be confined sim- ply to those things for which the city has the power of taxation, for which it can levy taxes. If so, we want it in the original form and not with Mr. Shepard’s amendment. The question is, if the city has the power to levy taxes for a particular purpose, whether it ought not to have the power to purchase or condemn prop- erty for that purchase. MR. HOYNE: That is what we want. MR. FISHER: That is what we have in one. Now, Mr. Shepard’s motion is to insert the words “city purposes,” for which it shall have power to levy taxes, and as Mr. Robins has said, when that should come before a court the court would be hunting around to find out why they put in the word “city.” That they must have thought there was some purpose for which the city should levy a tax that was not a city purpose. Now that is just the reason why I am opposed to Mr. Shepard’s amendment, that it imports some language in there that I cannot see what the meaning of it is, but which in the consideration by the court there would be an attempt to give to it some meaning. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bennett. MR. BENNETT: I think the trouble about this is, if I understand it right, if this charter is adopted there will be a consolidation of the parks, of the library and the schools and the city. All of these bodies will be a part of the city, and the word “city” embraces the whole subject. I do not think there is any preference as to which form the matter should take, as I see it. THE CHAIRMAN : Are you ready for the question? THE CHAIRMAN: As many as fa- vor Mr. Shepard’s amendment will sig- nify by saying aye; opposed, no. The amendment is lost. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is now upon the proposition as printed; as many as favor No. 1, Section XIII, will signify by saying aye; those op- posed, no. The motion prevailed. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the next section. The Secretary read Section No. 2, MR. BENNETT: This is a desirable provision, in case the city should de- sire to locate the Bridewell outside of the city limits, or desire to erect a gar- December 14 319 1906 bage plant, or desire to erect a home for juvenile offenders, it might be very desirable to go out where we could get plenty of land. I might cite other cases, but I think that is sufficient. I therefore move the adoption of the section. ME. O ’DONNELL : I second the mo- tion. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion, that the section be adopted. Are you ready for the question? MR, WALKER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the supporters, and proposers of these two sections if they mean that the word “property” covers all kinds of property, real, personal and mixed, or do they mean to apply the right of condemnation to personal property not attached to real estate? MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I assume that if it was necessary for us to condemn personal property to get the things we needed, yes; but I would not expect such a contingency to arise. If we wanted a particular piece of land, that involved the question of cer- tain personal property, we should have the right to have the land for the price the court says we should pay for it. MR. FTSHER: I want to call the attention of the Convention to one thing only, something raised by Judge Walker's statement: We now have cer- tain powers with regard to water; I can conceive of a situation where we might want to acquire water rights without any real estate, and that would be one of those things that might not be strictly real estate, *and yet it might be condemned, the water right. MR. RINAKER: I would like to ask a question: As I read Section 2, the words 1 1 so acquired,” that means that it can be by purchase or condemnation, does it not? THE CHAIRMAN: I presume so. MR. RTNAKER: And I want to ask if they want to give to the City of Chi- cago the power, for example — of course | this is an extreme case — the power to condemn a lot in the choicest part of Evanston for the purpose of locating the Bridewell? That is an extreme case, but the question is this: Do we want a charter passed with a section like that? Do you suppose that any country would allow Chicago the right to go down and condemn property in their respective community for Chicago city purposes? MR. BENNETT: When I spoke about garbage and the Bridewell, I as- sumed we were talking among our- selves. Of course we will be politic when we go to Springfield. This is one of the necessities we have experienced in the past. It is a very desirable provision in this charter, in my judg- ment. It is certainly desirable to put houses of correction and places of that sort where there will be plenty of land around them, and if the people who are to be affected by the location of such institutions suffer any damages, they have their remedy, and the City of Chi- cago I take it is ready to pay for it if it is necessary, for municipal func- tions. THE CHAIRMAN : Are you ready for the question? (Cries of “question.”) THE CHAIRMAN: As many as fa- vor the adoption of No. 2 of Section 13 will signify by saying aye. Those opposed, no. The Secretary will call the roll on that. MR. SHANAHAN: I think it might be well to divide No. 2; I believe there are a great many members of this Convention who are willing to give the right to the City of Chicago to go' out and purchase any property it may desire outside of the limits, but who are not willing for the City of Chi- cago to go and condemn property out- side of the city limits for any purposes whatever. I move that it be divided. THE CHAIRMAN: How will you divide it? December 14 320 1906 ME. SHANAHAN: Well, the city may acquire property by purchase outside as well as within the city limits for any municipal purpose. THE CHAIEMAN: What section do you refer to? MR. SHANAHAN: Section 13, 1 1 property. ’ ’ THE CHAIRMAN: Which part? MR. SHANAHAN: No. 2. It says, “The city may so acquire property out- side of as well as within the city limits for municipal purposes.’ ’ That means that the city may purchase or condemn outside property. I desire to move that that be divided so as to read that the city may acquire property by purchase outside as well as within the city limits for any municipal purpose, and not have the right to condemn outside prop- erty. MR. REYELL: May I ask Mr. Shanahan a question? THE CHAIRMAN : Just a minute, un- til I get Mr. Shanahan’s motion. The purport of your amendment is that the right of condemnation shall not be vested in the city outside of city lim- its? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes, sir. THE CHAIRMAN : But that it may purchase property outside of the city limits? MR. SHANAHAN : Yes, sir. MR. REVELL: I merely wish to ask Mr. Shanahan this question: Is it wise for us to anticipate too far ahead as to what the legislature may do in regard to the matter referred to by Judge Rinaker? I believe the City of Chicago would be willing to have the right granted to it to go outside to condemn property, that it might need for its own purposes, or for park pur- poses. But why should we assume here that the legislature would not want to grant that right to us? If we have to meet that point why not meet it at the legislature and let them eliminate it rather than us? MR. SHANAHAN: I assume that the citizens of the City of Chicago do not desire to give to the citizens of Mo- line or Springfield or Peoria the right to go into the City of Chicago and condemn its property for any municipal purposes for the cities of Peoria, Spring- field or Moline. I think we should be fair in these matters. MR. B. A. ECKHART: I simply de- sire to say, Mr. Chairman, that it might be necessary if the consolidation is ef- fected, to acquire property outside of the city limits of Chicago for other pur- poses than mentioned tonight, for the use of a Bridewell, or a small-pox hos- pital, or other objectionable purposes. It might be necessary in the near future to acquire property for parks; it may be necessary, if you carry out the scheme that has been proposed and ad- vocated for some time past for the outer park belt to have the right to acquire property not only by purchase, but by condemnation. Now, if we can secure such a right and power as that I think it would be very desirable to do so. I cannot conceive how any one of the state legislators or anyone here in this Convention can possibly imagine that the City of Chicago would go to Evanston and select the choicest block in that city for the use of a Bridewell. I do not think such a thing would be possible, and it appears to me if such a right be granted to the City of Chi- cago, as this paragraph covers, we ought to ask for it. MR. MacMILLAN: I think we can meet this objection raised by Mr. Shan- ahan and I think it is a good objection, and that raised by Judge Rinaker, by the insertion in this paragraph of a phrase about to the following effect, “that the city may acquire property j for these purposes in other localities outside of the city by and with the con- sent of the local authorities of such I district in which the property is lo- December 14 321 1906 cated which it is intended the city would acquire.” A VOICE: Oh, no. MR. MacMILLAN : That is exact- ly the point Mr. Shanahan has raised, and you never will secure the passage of this section by the legislature un- less a safeguard to that effect is made. For example, Alderman Bennett has called attention to the fact — and it is an important fact — that shortly the city may be called upon to enlarge its House of Correction facilities. It is necessary that a considerable tract of land should be secured; suppose that in that particular district it is necessary to secure 20 or 40 or 60 acres of land, and that it should be found necessary or advisable to have it in the center of Oak Park; do you think the Oak Park authorities for one moment would not be justified in using every proper meas- ure within their power to stop that pur- chase? Why, certainly, certainly they would. Suppose that the city should undertake to build a pest house — the il- lustration of Judge Rinaker is not an extreme one at all, it is a perfectly proper illustration, and there should be a safeguard in here, and that is a per- fectly proper one, too. When the City of Chicago is dealing with territory within its own limits that is one proposition; when it is dealing with property or territory out- side of its own limits, that is an en- tirely different proposition. We do not want to present ourselves to the Gen- eral Assembly in the attitude or with a covering of that kind over us; we want to be perfectly fair with our neighbors; and there are gentlemen here, members of this Convention, that live in suburban districts, to whom this matter will probably come very close- ly home. It seems to me it would be perfectly fair for us to adopt a provi- sion of that kind. MR. SHANAHAN: In answer to Mr. Eckhart in regard to the outer park proposition, when he states that the City of Chicago might want this power to condemn certain land for park purposes, I desire to state that that is for a specific purpose, and can be in- serted in any bill that is presented for that purpose. That is why I took the position I did yesterday in this matter of powers of the council, as to what the powers of the council were to be, that I was opposed to the broad grant of power to the City Council. I am in favor of a broad grant of specific and enumerative powers, not a broad grant of general powers. As Mr. Mac- Millan has well said, let us be fair to our neighbors. In regard to what Mr. Revell said, let us send it down to the legislature and see what they will do with it. There are some members of this Con- vention who are not in favor of hold- ing the bag much longer; let us not dump everything off on the legislature, that is not fair. Let the Charter Con- vention of Chicago be fair with the legislature, as well as being fair with Chicago. MR. PAULLIN: I am very greatly in favor of the suggestion of Mr. Shanahan, as supported by Mr. Mac- Millan. By virtue of the office I hold I have been made a member of this Convention. I am a resident of Evans- ton, and I can say to this Convention now that if it were , to insert in the charter that you could condemn prop- erty, that you could take property by condemnation outside of the city limits, there would be a storm in this state and that provision would not pass the legis- lature. The country towns of this coun- ty have already entered a protest to the legislature against anything of that kind, they have entered a protest with the legislature for the preservation of the counties. The country towns of this county have been in favor of a Greater Chicago for Chicago, and they stand today for a Greater Chicago for December 14 322 1906 Chicago. But if you attempt to insert a provision giving the right of con- demnation in the country towns, or any other towns outside of Chicago, that provision certainly will not pass the legislature without great protest; and I believe the suggestions made by Mr. Shanahan, and I believe seconded by Mr. MacMillan, should meet with the approval of this Convention. MB. FISHEB: I confess to having some uncertainty about this matter. I thought Mr. MacMillan ’s point was well taken, that is, that that power should be exercised solely with the consent of the authorities of any city, village or incorporated town; now, I don’t know whether ME. SHANAHAN : Whether it has a government, whether it is an unor- ganized territory, or not? MB. FISHEB: Whether it is unor- ganized territory or not, I presume the I city would have the right to condemn without consent if it were not organ- ized, if there was no recognized govern- ment. I find on looking at the digest of city charters that we have secured extraordinary powers, unless there are some limitations contained in the digest which I have not found. I find on page 129 that among the powers the State of Illinois gives the council is the power to establish and regulate cemeteries within and without the city limits, and ac- quire land for cemeteries within or with- out the city limits. It don ’t seem to put any limitation on it at all. MB. MacMILLAN: We would prob- ably need a cemetery if this were passed. MB. SHANAHAN: Well, that is a specific purpose, is it not? MB. FISHEB: Yes. MB. SHANAHAN: Yes, that is a specific purpose. MB. FISHEB: I don’t suppose that there is much more objection to some of these proposed things, barring the pest- house, than this. I find on page 138, that the city may go beyond its territo- rial limits for the purpose of supplying and establishing water works, and may hold and acquire property for that pur- pose. Now, that may be a stream, or it may be a well, it don ’t seem to put any limit on it. There may be limits, but they are not in this digest that I can see. Now, if those provisions in the charter are without limitation, if they were passed by the legislature, that would be taking away the power which they now have with regard to cemeteries and water works, if the amendment is adopted. MB. McCOBMICK: It appears to me that the suggestion as regards city pow- ers is a better one than the suggestion offered by Mr. MacMillan. Mr. Mac- Millan suggests that we should condemn whenever local authorities allow us to. Now, let us take the position of the local authorities. Say that a local authority wants to condemn seven lots. The au- thority will go to the trustees and they will say : ‘ ‘ We don ’t want the pro- perty condemned. We want a fair price; and I want this and that. ’ ’ Are you go- ing to the trustees to say, 1 ‘ We will come in and take that old property any way and we will pay?” Pardon me for drawing on some of my own personal experience. I will tell you a case in point. A country telephone company wanted to cross the drainage canal. It wanted the drainage canal to do some- thing in regard to the bank. It would not do it the way it wanted it to, and we had to make the best of it. We didn’t act as they suggested, and matters dragged along until the people who wanted to get telephone service got im- patient. What did they do? They looked around for the local officer who had a little grip to use and they went to the road commissioner. The sanitary district canal hasn ’t any dispute with the road commissioners. The road com- missioner came in and got the telephone service for the betterment of his own constituents as against the Chicago cor- December 14 323 1906 poration. So, Mr. MacMillan, I think you will find the same thing. The local officials will stand by their constituency as against the City of Chicago who merely wanted property in that town. Especi- ally if you are going to ask permission to put a pest house out in the country. I do not mean to say that you would not get such permission. At the same time in the case of parks in rightly governed cities the city should have the power to extend its government. I make the sug- gestion, not in the form of a motion, that this clause either be deferred or referred to a committee to enumerate the kind of things we would like to have permission to get authority for out in the country. ME. YOUNG: The power of condem- nation is one of the most disagreeable powers of the government, because it takes private property against the will of the owner, even when exercised under the most desirable plan. It is a dis- agreeable power, and it is an extraordin- ary power, and therefore should be lim- ited and specific. I do not think this question is one of what we now have power to do, or what the State Legisla- ture will allow us to do. It seems to me it is rather a question of justice and fair dealing on the part of this Conven- tion. For any proper purpose, not to be too disagreeable for any community out- side the city, a specific regulation can be provided and, as Mr. Shanahan has said, so far as parks are concerned that can be provided for under that section ; but to grant this unlimited and extra- ordinary power without respect to lim- ited territory seems to me to be not only unfair but very undesirable. MR. BENNETT: If I may be par- doned for speaking again, I would like to say that I think we are unduly exer- cised over this question. In this work the city is not going out of its territory to acquire lands where there are no habitations. Now, if we attempted to go into any locality which is built up, or into any municipality and establish a nuisance, such a locality has now both power and authority to stop us. We couldn ’t do it. We could not in the case of Evanston ; we could not go into any other village and establish a nuisance. This matter of condemnation is purely a matter between the city — would be, under this power — would be between the city and the individuals who had the land we wanted to acquire. If the individual was willing to take a fair price, undoubtedly the city w r ould be willing to pay it ; and if he was not willing to take a fair price, the court would set a fair price. The court would protect him. I cannot see any danger to our neighbors, and I would be the last one to put any nuisance on them in this provision. MR. ROBINS: Alderman Bennett has outlined the full protection that exists for any community against any other. Chicago — it is rather inconceivable — but if the city should make any effort to plant a nuisance in any community that community is protected by the laws of the state. On the other hand we know of two instances that have occurred simi- lar to this. A city desired to have a boy ’s farm away from the immediate sur- roundings of the city, and it goes oi/t into what is at the time of the location of the farm a few miles from the city limits, a small area of uninhabited dis- tricts, and it buys a property quite ade- quate for its use at that time and builds extensive buildings. It then wishes to add to its territory, and because the build- ings are there and the demands of the city are greater, the property owner demands a very high price; so high that the city refuses to pay. The city has the power to decide just what is excessive and it will not buy. And the legitimate devel- opment of that particular work and func- tion of the city must stop, and must stop in this case that I am referring to for a period of three years until a special act of the Legislature shall procure a con- demnation of this particular property. Now, it seems to me that some adequate December 14 324 1906 protection can be devised — if they are not already protected, by general laws against nuisances and matters of that sort. And the city should have the power to con- demn in cases where an unreasonable holder demands an unreasonable price. And the city needs a particular extension to carry on its function whatever it may be. MR. MERRIAM: Mr. Fisher read, as I took it, a part of the general city and village act of 1872. That was a granting power given not to the City of Chicago, but to all of the cities of Illinois, that are to be ranked as municipalities and not as villages. Apparently, however, what Mr. Fisher read would indicate that the council has power to establish and regulate cemeteries. Now, that would authorize the City of Moline to establish a cemetery in the very heart of the City of Chicago; and the City of Peoria to come in and do the same thing. MR. MacMj-^LAN : May I ask a ques- tion? MR. MERRIAM: Yes. MR. MacMILLAN : Does that mean that they shall acquire property for cemeteries by condemnation? MR. MERRIAM: It is a power. MR. MacMILLAN : But that is the crux of this question. It is not to ac- quire it, but it is to acquire it by con- demnation as the court shall declare. MR. MERRIAM: Well, it is cer- tainly true in regard to water works. In order to acquire a city water works site a city may go beyond its territorial lim- its and take and condemn property. The City of Moline, for instance, could ac- quire city property within the City of Chicago for city water works, and so could the City of Evanston do the same thing. MR. MacMILLAN : Would water works be considered by the community as a nuisance the same as a pest house or a crematorium? MR. MERRIAM: It might be that they would condemn property in the heart of the city. I take an extraordin- ary case, an extreme case. MR. SHANAHAN: I desire to say to Professor Merriam that this is a pro- vision for a specific purpose. It is for water works, provided it be for a specific purpose that you want to condemn out- side property. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon Mr. Shanahan ’s substitute, for w T hich Senator Brown has a substitute. I think that Senator Brown’s substitute covers the same as Mr. Shanahan’s sub- stitute. The Secretary will read Mr. Shanahan’s substitute and then Senator Brown ’s. The Secretary read Mr. Shanahan ’s substitute as hereinbefore printed; also — By* Mr. Brown: The city may acquire property outside of the city, or purchase and condemn property for municipal pur- poses within the city. MR. SHANAHAN : I aceept Senator Brown’s substitute. THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Brown ’s sub- stitute will be substituted for Mr. Shana- han ’s substitute. Mr. Eckhart has a sub- stitute. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon Mr. Eckhart ’s substitute. MR. ECKHART: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to present it as a substitute at this time. I desire to offer it after action has been taken upon Mr. Brown’s substitute. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Eckhart ’s resolution is temporarily withdrawn. - MR. PENDARVIS : Mr. Chairman, I think that there ought to be reserved to the city a ’right to exercise under the act of eminent domain for park purposes just outside the city limits. Now, unless this is done, Mr. Chairman, I think we are not taking a step forward in our scheme for consolidation. I feel so strongly upon this point that in the com- mittee on the relation of the municipal- ity to other bodies I took the position that we ought not to make the park sys- tem a branch of the city government, for December 14 325 1906 the reason that the time was at hand when our park system should extend with- out the city as well as within the city. I believe we are carrying the idea of consolidation to a very little extent, and unless we protect ourselves now, we shall find that we have been very unwise. Un- less we provide at this time, if it is the intention of this Convention to adhere to the position of making the park sys- tem a branch of the city government, un- less we provide here and now under this section that the . city may exercise the right of eminent domain in acquiring property for park purposes outside of the city, we will not have taken the position that we- should have done and men of good judgment and foresight for the future of this city would do. I would therefore suggest that this clause be so amended as to protect the owners of the city in that regard. Outside of that I am in sympathy with the position of Mr. Shanahan and of the others who be- lieve that the power of eminent domain should be confined, and I therefore offer, Mr. Chairman, the following as a sub- stitute for all matters upon number two. MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read Mr. Pendarvis’ substitute. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Pendar- vis: The city may acquire property out- side of as well as within the city limits for any municipal purpose, but may not exercise the right of eminent domain outside the city limits, except for park purposes. MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fisher. MR. FISHER: We have been talking about houses of correction as though they were the illustration that was most apt. I find on page 140 of the Digest of City Charters the following: “The council has power to establish and erect callabooses, bridewells and work-houses for the reformation and con- finement of vagrants, idle and disorderly persons convicted of violating the city ordinances ; to make rules and regulations for the government of such institutions and to appoint the necessary keepers and assistants; to use the county jail for the confinement and punishment of offenders, subject to conditions imposed by law and with the consent of the county board. The city may purchase, own and control not exceeding 40 acres of land (either within or without the corporate limits, if within three miles, for the purpose of establishing a house of correction to be used for the confinement and punishment of criminals or persons sentenced thereto under the provisions of the laws relating to cities or any state law or city ordinance. ’ ’ Then it goes on : ‘ 1 When a house of correction is estab- lished outside the city limits the munici- pal authorities have the same police power over the territory surrounding it as they have within the city. ’ ’ So I suppose if that is the construction, we could go into the City of Evanston, which happens to adjoin us on the north and therefore be within the three mile limit, and we could acquire 40 acres of land and put our vagrants, criminals and other disorderly persons in that territory and have police jurisdiction over it. MR. YOUNG: That is by purchase and not by condemnation, but this pro- vides for condemnation. MR. FISHER: The whole question would not depend upon the power of eminent domain which is given to the city. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fisher has the floor. MR. FISHER: Just a moment, and I will finish what I. ha\e to say. The question, it seems to me, does not depend on the distinction of the power of emi- nent domain. The objection that has been urged to this is not the exercise of the power of eminent domain. As Mr. Robins has said, the question of the exer- cise of the power of eminent domain really only lies between the individual December 14 326 1906 and the city ordinarily, the condemning party. I apprehend it would be just as objectionable to Mr. Paulin if the city bought a piece of property from a person who happened to be in hard circumstan- ces and was willing to sell it in the center of Evanston, and located this particular institution for the care of the inmates I have just mentioned, as it would be if it had condemned that particular man’s lot or land or house or whatever it was. The objections we have are as to the lo- cation of the particular institution, and not the exercise of the power of eminent domain to put it there. So that the question seems to be involving consider- able difficulty, and it does occur to me that it would be appropriate to post- pone this question until we can look it up a little more thoroughly and find out what the provisions of the existing statutes are. It is consuming an im- mense amount of time for its consider- ation, compared with its relative im- portance. For instance, I do not know, but my recollection is that the power of eminent domain is pretty broad as given to the city under the General Cities and Villages Act; not broad enough to cover everything, but it might be broad enough to cover this purpose. It seems to me we are raising a question here which seemed to be simple in the beginning but which has a multitude of questions in it on which we ought to have a little more light. MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest that while I may not possibly know the law, that if we bought the piece of property in Evanston for a bridewell, that would be a nuisance; but if we had a specific right to con- demn it that law might take the right of way over the law of nuisance and we would have it located there. MR. PAULLIN: The City of Evanston has no fear of the City of Chicago ever coming to that city and buying 40 acres of land, because we really believe the City of Chicago will never have money , enough for that purpose. But this is a principle and the City of Evanston should not be used so much in vain. This same principle applies to the other surrounding towns, and doubtless you will leave Evanston alone. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to Mr. Pendarvis’ amend- ment. He limits absolutely the power of condemnation for park purposes only in his resolution. I am not prepared to go that far with Mr. Pendarvis, because there might be desirable purposes for the City of Chicago that will not be ob- jectionable in the future which might arise, and I do not believe in cutting off the avenue entirely and limiting abso- lutely to park purposes. But, I do not believe in giving general power of con- demnation. There might be some other specific power that we would not object to. I would prefer to see the actual ques- tion decided on Mr. Shanahan ’s motion and then take up the specific instances af- terwards. MR. REVELL: Mr. Chairman, if it be in order may I move this substitute for all pending substitutes? THE CHAIRMAN: There is before the house Mr. Bennett ’s motion to adopt Mr. Brown ’s substitute to that and Mr. Pendarvis 1 substitute to Mr. Brown ’s substitute, and Mr. Revell for the time being is out of order. MR. REVELL: I offer it as an amendment to the last substitute. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, the Chair will have to rule for the time being that Mr. Revell ’s amendment is out of order. MR. MacMILLAN: If the question is coming on these substitutes I have a little one there that I do not want to get lost or have it sent to the house of correction or some place else. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary reports that Mr. MacMillan’s substitute is not on hand. THE SECRETARY: It is here, but it was not offered. December 14 327 1906 MR. MacMILLAN : I made my feeble remarks on it. THE SECRETARY: Yes, it is here, but it was not offered. MR. MERRIAM: I desire to move that section 2 of chapter 13 be referred to the committee on rules, procedure and general plans, with instructions to report back to this Convention, and all matters pertaining thereto. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to that motion. Every time this Convention gets into a tangle somebody gets up and says, “Let us put it off. Don ’t consider it now ; let us take it up some other time. ’ 1 And when it comes up again we discuss it and go over the whole formula again without reaching any decision. It seems to me that we can decide this point tonight without refer- ring it. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read Mr. MacMillan ’s substitute, which seems to have been lost in the shuffle temporarily, and see whether it covers the ground of some of these other substitutes. The Secretary read the substitute as hereinbefore printed. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would suggest that the first vote be taken upon Mr. Brown ’s substitute. MR. McGOORTY : Mr. Chairman, I desire to say that I second the motion of Mr. Merriam to postpone or refer this matter to the committee on general plans. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion. As many as favor will signify by saying aye. Op posed, no. (The viva voce vote leaving the chair- man in doubt a roll call was ordered on the motion to refer the section to the committee on rules.) MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Roll call, Mr. Mc- Cormick. The Secretary will call the roll. ! Yeas — Beebe, Burke, Carey, Church, De I ver, Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Fisher, Guerin, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Mac I Millan, McCormick, McGoorty, Merriam, Oehne, Owens, Rinaker, Robins, Taylor, Yopicka, Zimmer — 23. Nays— Beilfuss, Bennett, Brown, Hoyne, Linehan, McKinley, O ’Donnell, Paullin, Pendarvis, Powers, Raymer, Revell, Shanahan, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Walker, Werno, White, Wilkins, Young — 21. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the motion to recommit, the yeas are 23 and the noes are 21, and the motion is carried. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read No. XIV. (The Secretary read No. XIV.) MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of paragraph 1. THE CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and seconded that this paragraph be adopted. As many as favor will sig- nify by saying aye; opposed, no. The ayes have it. The motion prevailed. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read paragraph 2. The Secretary read paragraph No. 2. THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Shepard. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to section 2 of chapter 14. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the substitute. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Shep- ard : Amend paragraph 2 of section 14 on contracts by inserting after the word “exceptions,” in line 4, the following: “arising out of an emergency caused by fire, flood, epidemics or other unforseen casualty, and for work, material or sup- plies not exceeding in any one instance a cost of $500.” MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shepard. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment for the reason that, this section seeks to limit the letting of contracts by the City Council only to lowest responsible bidders after public advertisement, and then it is subject to limitations. That means by general or- December 14 328 1906 dinanc-es. Of course that means that the City Council may properly limit and safeguard the letting of public con- tracts. Then it provides “and excep- tions, ’ ’ it seems to me, may be con- strued to mean that the City Coun- cil may except everything and noth- ing may be left to the low- est responsible bidder upon public ad- vertisement, or rather, that no public ad- vertisement for the lowest responsible bidder need be had. Now I think public contracts should be left to the lowest responsible bidder upon due advertise- ment, subject, however, to reasonable regulations and discretions vested in the City Council arising out of emergencies and I have offered this amendment. Perhaps, the words do not adequately cover the exception, but they get at the idea, and are substantially the excep- tions that appear in other charters of other municipalities, viz. : The City Coun- cil may except those contracts from pub- lic advertisement and to the lowest re- sponsible bidder where emergency arises caused by fire, flood, epidemics or other unforeseen casualties, or for work, ma- terial or supplies, the cost of which in any single instance shall not exceed the sum of $500. It seems to me that these safeguards should be put in the charters, and I move the adoption of this amend- ment. INI K. McCORMICK: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this first section is not as clear as it might be. It says, ‘ 1 Mu- nicipal services may be performed and municipal works carried out by the city directly or by means of contract. ” Does not this section cover such work as street building and sewer building, or does it not? THE CHAIRMAN: It is supposed to. MR. McCORMICK : Then this second section says, ‘ ‘ Contracts for works or supplies shall be let to the lowest respon- sible bidder after public advertisement, subject to limitations and exceptions to be established by general ordinance. ’ * Does not that conflict with the first para- graph ? MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the two paragraphs as printed seem to me to be in opposition one to the other. The purpose of the first paragraph, as I un- derstand it, is to enable the city to do its own work as it seems fit. The prin- cipal reason why I supported that para- graph and moved its adoption was that there have been times in the city’s ex- perience and there will be times when combinations are formed and prices are put up to a point where the city is re- quired to spend much more money than a particular contract would require. Or- dinarily I believe in the contract sys- tem, but there are times when the city should be free to combat combinations and protect citizens in the expenditure of their money. In Boston they have a provision which permits the city to be- come a bidder as well as the private contractor upon the advertisement, or after the bids are made. The city may take the contract at a less price than the contractor. I deem this one of the important features of the charter, and I feel that the exceptions set forth by the amendment of Mr. Shepard ’s should not prevail. The paragraph as originally printed should not be adopted unless it be amended so far as to make it clear that it is not in opposition to paragraph one. The city should have the right to do this work however it sees fit. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman, in reply to Mr. Bennett I will say that I understood bv the adoption of section one the city had a clear right to do the work itself, and my amendment was not intended to impair that right in any sense of the word. MR. BENNETT : Mr. Chairman, par- agraph two reads that, 1 1 Contracts for work or supplies shall be let to the lowest responsible bidder.” It has been so construed and the law committee so understood it in drafting the provisions, and I have no objections to it, but as it December 14 329 1906 is it printed it is clearly in conflict with paragraph one. THE CHAIRMAN: Your idea is that the paragraph should be qualified by the first paragraph, and that would be understood as being the attitude of the Convention. The question is upon Mr. Shepard ’s amendment. MR. B. A. ECKHART: Mr. Chair- man, before that motion is put I would like to ask for information, whether that is qualified so that the city may not be compelled to let to the lowest responsible bidder. As has been stated by Mr. Bennett there are instances when contractors combine or form com- binations and the city pays a high price for the work to be done, and if you are obliged to accept the lowest responsible bidder it may be that you are obliged to pay a great deal more for the work than you ought to pay. Now I understood Mr. Bennett to raise that point, and do I understand, Mr. Shepard, that your amendment will so qualify the section that that will not be possible? MR. SHEPARD: May I answer, Mr. Chairman ? THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly. MR. SHEPARD: I do not under- stand it that way. I understand that by the adoption of section 1 the City Council may in the purchase of labor, material or supplies, or in the construc- tion of any public work, may do it it- self or it may determine to do it by contract. Now, Section 2, the way I read Sec- tion 2, the drafters might have made that a little clearer. The way I con- strue it is, when the City Council does determine to do it by contract, then it shall be to the lowest responsible bid- der. MR. B. A. ECKHART: Well, that is the point that I wish to understand. Assuming that the City of Chicago con- cludes to advertise a certain piece of work to be let by contract, and it may have the right to do the work itself, but it concludes to advertise, under this provision if it concludes to advertise, is it incumbent upon the city after ad- vertising to let to the lowest responsi- ble bidder, although there have been combinations formed, and that bid would be very, very much too high? MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman, my amendment does not go to that point at all. My amendment simply places another limitation when they do de- cide to let by contract, to carry that through. I have no objection at all to anything Mr. Eckhart may suggest to make it plain, that they may advertise or determine to advertise for bids and then may determine to reject all bids. MR. B. A. ECKHART: That is all I desire, to have the city protected in that respect. MR. ZIMMER: Mr. Chairman, I de- sire to ask a question along this line. It says, “ contracts for work or sup- plies shall be let to the lowest respon- sible bidder. ’’ Is not that covered be- low ■where it says, “subject to limita- tions and exceptions to be established by general ordinance. ” Does not that give the city the right to say that all bids might be rejected? That might be established by ordinance as I under- stand it. MR. McCORMICK: Mr*. Chairman, I do not think Alderman Zimmer sees exactly what Alderman Bennett was saying. MR. ZIMMER: I heard it; I didn’t see it. MR. McCORMICK: It is perfectly easy to order all bids rejected if there were a combination of five contractors who controlled that industry, but they can come back again at the end of the next sixty days just as well combined as before, and keep it up until public patience is tired out, and they have to be met. Now, the point that Alderman Bennett made and one which un- doubtedly appeals to every man who December 14 330 1906 has had to take charge of public work is that the public should be allowed to do work by day labor, so if contrac- tors will not bid reasonable and do their work properly the city can step in and do the work itself. Now, as I understand it, by adopting No. 1 you have provided for that, but in order to make the matter doubly sure I will suggest the following amend- ment to Section 2: In line 1, before the word ‘ ‘ contracts ’ ’ put the word “when”; in line 2, after the word ‘ 1 let ’ 7 put the words ‘ ‘ they shall 7 ’, so that it shall read: “When contracts for work or sup- plies shall be let, they shall be let to the lowest responsible bidder, after pub- lic advertisement, subject to limita- tions and exceptions to be established by general ordinance.” That makes it very clear and I move the adoption of that amendment. MR. SHEPARD: I accept that. THE CHAIRMAN: Does Mr. Shep- ard accept that amendment to his amendment? MR. SHEPARD: Yes. MR. REYELL: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer an amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Revell’s substitute will be read. MR. REYELL: It is an amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Revell ’s amendment will be read. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Revell: Provided, that any person, firm or cor- poration convicted of combining against the city for the purpose of ad- vancing prices or who shall offer a bribe in connection with the work, shall thereafter be eliminated from any con- tract relations with the city. THE CHAIRMAN: That is an amendment to Mr. Shepard’s motion. MR. LINEHAN: Mr. Chairman, all they would have to do in that case would be to change their name and start over again. I think we ought to put a little punishment in it if we want to make an amendment like that at all. MR. RAYMER: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Raymer. MR. RAYMER: Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that this amendment is hard- ly germane to the question. It might , be well to insert a proposition of that kind after you adopt Section 2 as amended, but I do not hardly feel as if the amendment offered is relative to the question before the house. MR. REVELL: It reads all right, doesn’t it? MR. RAYMER.: It reads first rate, Mr. Revell. MR. WHITE: May I ask, Mr. Chair- man, for the reading again of Mr. Shepard’s amendment? THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shepard’s amendment as amended by Mr. Mc- Cormick will be read by the Secretary. The Secretary read as directed. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. White. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if I understand the purport of Mr. Shep- ard’s motion it is to name specifically the possible exceptions under which the City Council can do certain things. I merely raise the question whether it would be wise at this time to specifi- cally mention for all future time just what exception the City Council might make. If you specify those it can make by implication — I ask the lawyers for information on this — by implication you prohibit it from making any other exceptions except those named. Tf that be so it would seem to me to be very unwise and unreasonable at this time to fix these exceptions. I should personally very much rather leave this to the wisdom and discretion of the City CounciP and I should prefer that Mr. Shepard ’s amendment should be defeated, leaving the thing as it is subject to the future law of the coun- cil, if I understand Mr. Shepard’s mo- tion. December 14 331 1906 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? MR. McGOORTY: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. McGoorty. MR. MeGOORTY: Will the Secre- tary read the amendment offered by Mr. McCormick again. It seems to me to be a repetition of the first clause of No. 2. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secretary read Mr. Shepard’s motion as amended by Mr. McCormick. The motion of Mr. Shepard as amended by Mr. McCormick was again read by the Secretary. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. McCor- mick’s amendment puts the word ‘ * when ’ ’ before 1 1 contracts, ” as I re- member it. THE SECRETARY: That is not the way I have it here. MR. McCORMICK: “ When contracts for work or supplies shall be let they shall be let to the lowest responsible bidder. ’ ’ MR. BENNETT: Will you add, Mr. Chairman — if Mr. McCormick will add to that “after advertisement” THE SECRETARY: That is in there. MR. McCORMICK: That is in there already, is it not? MR. BENNETT: It is in there, is it? THE CHAIRMAN: It is in there al- ready. The Secretary will read the resolution now. THE SECRETARY: As amended several times: When contracts for work or supplies shall be let, they shall be let to the lowest responsible bid- der, after public advertisement, subject to limitations and exceptions arising out of an emergency caused by fire, flood, epidemics, or other unforseen casualties, and for work, material or supplies not exceeding in any one in- ' stance, a cost of $.300. MR. SNOW : Before the motion is I put it seems to me that we are going a j little strong. Now, what is the prac- tical result of' the adoption of the amendment as offered by Mr. ShepardJ It is a notorious matter to all of us that the City of Chicago or practically any municipality, because of this series of limitations which seems to be gen- eral, is not able to go into the public market and purchase supplies as readily and cheaply in the long run as can a private corporation. Now, the reason for that is that there is a lack of elasticity in the business methods which may be practiced when such limita- tions are placed upon those responsible for the transaction of that business. You all know perfectly well that the market prices for supplies of the va- rious kinds are fluctuating constantly. They fluctuate with the law of supply and demand, and a limitation which for- bids, practically, a municipality to take advantage of those fluctuations which take place in prices necessarily en- hances the price of the goods which are to be bought and the work to be done by that corporation. Now, a private corporation which is authorized to buy supplies is in a position to take advantage of the lowest market, and certainly a municipality should be left with the opportunity to take advantage of such market conditions, if there is a material advantage to be secured. It may be said, and undoubtedly lurk- ing behind the amendment is the idea that if the City Council is given a free hand that it will go into the market and buy higher than it would by advertise- ment. But that is a condition which will not exist where the corrective of public sentiment can be applied, as it <*an be applied to a public body of this kind. Now, the greatest difficulty of a mu- nicipality in performing its work is the fact that there is a lack of busi- ness elasticity in the methods which it may bring to bear in a matter of this kind. An amendment of this kind December 14 332 1906 makes it more difficult for the mu- nicipality to transact ‘business on the same plan as a private corporation would transact its business. For that reason I believe the matter should be left, with the general requirements that the supplies and works should be ad- vertised for, to a body of this kind in its wisdom being allowed to take ad- vantage of a market condition which may arise at any time. MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Chairman, cannot we have the matter come up separately. I would like to have a vote on the resolution as amended by Mr. Shepard, if we can; or else have a vote on the amendment first, and if it failed, vote on it without it. THE- CHAIRMAN: The question will be upon Mr. Shepard’s motion as amended by you, Mr. McCormick. MR. BENNETT: After some reflec- tion I am of the opinion that section paragraph 2 has no place in this charter. Under the present charter the city has a power to let contracts, and there is no restriction upon the council as to the method of letting contracts under the charter. It is different in regard to local improvements, as it should be. But following out the power granted, the council has provided an ordinance which reads, if I may be pardoned for quoting it for the benefit of the Con- vention: — “In all cases of bids for do- ing work that may be any public im- provement there shall be sealed bids directed to the department,” and so forth; providing how they shall be opened; and “contracts shall be let after advertisement to the lowest re- sponsible bidder.” Now, having given the city the power of doing the work it- self, and resting the balance of our needs on a provision of the charter which we have already adopted, I am inclined to believe that this subject is fully covered, and if you attempt now to insert paragraph 2 it will act as a limitation rather than as an addition to the charter, and if a motion is in order I would move to lay the whole subject matter on the table. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion. MR. RE YELL: I understand that does not carry my motion; that can be •acted on separately. THE CHAIRMAN: No, sir. As many as favor the motion that the whole subject lay on the table will sig- nify by saying aye. The motion is carried. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Revell’s motion is before the house. The Sec- retary will read it. The Secretary read the resolution as hereinbefore printed. THE CHAIRMAN: What will you do with the motion? MR. REVELL: I move its adoption. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion to adopt is before the house. Any discus- sion? If not, those in favor of, signify by sajdng aye. MR, WALKER: This resolution, I Understand, bases the exclusion of a contractor upon a conviction, does it not? MR. REVELL: Yes. MR. WALKER: I presume there would not be very much objection to incorporating that in the charter, though I believe it would be worthless. There is a statute now that covers that, making it a criminal offense to enter into any combination to seek a public contract of any municipality, county or state, and I do not believe it will strengthen it any by incorporating that, though possibly there is no objection to its being incorporated in the charter. MR. JONES: I would like to ask, is this a matter that we ought to con- sider now? It seems to me this is a matter of detail that ought not to find a place in the charter, which is prac- tically a city constitution. I therefore move that Mr. Revell ’s motion be laid upon the table. December 14 333 1906 MR. REVELL: I consider this a very important matter, and a matter which ought to go into the charter. If it is there so that all who wish may read it and see it, it will be an encour- agement to merchants, and manufactur- ers who have been practically eliminated from the possibility of getting contracts from large public bodies, it will encour- age them to go in and seek the con- viction of persons whom they know to be indulging in combinations and offer- ing bribes. As it now is there is an indefinite feature about it that a mer- chant does not care to tackle. Let it be there in the charter plainly, and I believe you will find merchants who after they have wasted their time up- on invitation of a city or county or state in preparing plans and specifica- tions, find that no trouble whatever has been taken and no consideration what- ever has been given to these firms. I believe, Mr. Chairman, this is one of the things which hinders public bodies from getting the character of work they should get — from getting this character of work at prices which are honest. I believe if you adopt some such feat- ure as this that merchants and others who figure upon public contracts will be careful about entering into any com- bination or offering a bribe to any public officials. It certainly cannot do any harm. MR. BENNETT: I do not arise for the purpose of opposing the spirit of this resolution, but to call the attention of the Convention to Section 8 of the present Cities and Villages \ct, which we have already adopted. This is a provision which seeks to punish, and very broadly, any person who offers a bribe or who receives one, by imprison- ment in the penitentiary, and by a fine of five thousand dollars. That subject, Mr. Revell, is fully covered in the Cities and Villages Act which we have j adopted as a portion of this charter. I MR. REVELL: The more you can show this up the better it would be for the city. MR. BENNETT: Just print this section and scatter it broadcast. It is just as much a law as it ever can be made. MR. FISHER: The only thing Mr. Revell has in mind, or the real thing he has in mind is something which this amendment does not cover. The amend- ment as it is offered requires convic- tion. If a man is convicted he will be sufficiently taken care of, under the section that Alderman Bennett refers to. There is considerable feeling abroad, I find there has been for many years, that if a man has reasonable be- lief that there is a combination of bidders existing, and that a certain man ’s previous contract has not been lived up to, that therefore he should be excluded from bidding. But I don’t think that you could incorporate that in proper language in the city charter. THE CHAIRMAN : Are you ready for Senator Jones’ motion, that Mr. Revell ’s resolution be laid upon the table? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed, no. MR. REVELL: A roll call, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll upon the motion to lay upon the table. Yeas — Baker, Beebe, Beilfuss, Ben- nett, Brown, Burke, Carey, Church, Clettenberg, Dever, Dixon, G. W.; Fish- er, Guerin, Hoyne, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, McCormick, McGoor- ty, McKinley, Merriam, Owens, Paul- lin, Pendarvis, Powers, Raymer, Rina- ker, Robins, Shanahan, Shepard, Smul- ski, Snow, Taylor, Vopicka, Walker, Werno, White, Wilkins, Young, Zim- mer — 41. Nays — Revell — 1. During roll call: MR. BENNETT: I vote aye for the reason 1 believe the subject is already December 14 334 1906 covered by the City and Village Act, and by the criminal law of the state. THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed with the roll call. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the mo- tion to lay upon the table, yeas 41, nays 1. The motion is carried. The Secretary will read No. VI. MR. McCORMICK: I would like to have the resolution read. THE SECRETARY: “By McCor- mick: The city shall be empowered to acquire, by purchase or condemnation, land for the purpose of building sewers into the Drainage Canal. ” MR, McCORMICK: I want that be- low paragraph 2, section 13. THE CHAIRMAN: Let it be printed and taken up when that section is reached. The Secretary will read No. 15. The Secretary then read No. XV, as printed in the proceedings at page 54. MR, MERRIAM: I move that that be taken up for consideration with par- agraph 10. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Merriam moves that the section relating to streets and public places be taken up with the Revenue Section. Is there a second to that motion? As many as favor that signify by saying aye. Those opposed, no. The motion prevailed. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read Section 16. THE SECRETARY: Page 55, Pub- lic Utilities. MR. SNOW: This is a section that wiT probably engage us in as much de- bate as any section in the charter, and I move you that it be made a special or- der and set among the special orders, when we may devote a day, if neces- sary, discussing it. MR. WERNO: Why not discuss it now, as well as any other time? I move that that motion be laid on the table. MR. CHURCH: I would like to ask as a matter of information when some of these matters that we' are making special orders of are to be taken up? It seems to me we are accomplishing nothing by making special orders and not setting some particular time in which we are to discuss them, or take them up to decide them. I think when special orders are made we should set them for some particular time when they will be taken up and considered. I move, Mr. Chairman, that this sub- ject of public utilities be made a spe- cial order for tomorrow afternoon, if there is to be a meeting of this body at that time. THE CHAIRMAN: If the Chair may be permitted, I would say that I see no reason why this matter should not be started now and finished tomor- row afternoon. MR, CHURCH: Well, I am willing to withdraw my motion, with that un- derstanding. THE CHAIRMAN: We have forty minutes time yet before adjournment. MR. SNOW: The reason I made my motion is there is practically only half an hour further of time for this meet- ing of this body — as a matter of fact, there is only ten minutes — the arrange- ment was 10 o’clock. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, the mat- ter is before the house. What will you gentlemen do with Section 16, leave it or take it up now? MR. WERNO: I move that para- graph 1, of 16, be adopted. MR. CHURCH: I desire to renew the motion I made a moment ago that this matte*’ be made a special order for tomorrow afternoon. MR, WHITE: I will ask if there is a special order for tomorrow afternoon. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the spe- cial orders of revenue and education and woman suffrage, there should be a special notice sent out by the Secretary stating the time. MR. WHITE: I asked if there was December 14 335 1906 any special subject assigned for tomor- row afternoon? THE CHAIRMAN: What is the question? _ MR. WHITE: If there was a special order for tomorrow afternoon. THE CHAIRMAN: The ‘special or- ders were set for this week, but the Convention has changed its work on routine matters. It might be well for us either today or tomorrow to fix cer- tain dates for the consideration, cer- tain dates next week, for the considera- tion of the subjects of revenue and edu- cation, after disposing of this matter. MR. HOYNE: Did Mr. Church set a date? MR. CHURCH: Yes, tomorrow af- ternoon. If there is no special order for that time. THE CHAIRMAN: There is no spe- cial order. MR. CHURCH: Well, I make that motion, Mr. Chairman. MR. HOYNE: Make it Monday. MR. FISHER: The committee on public utilities of which I was a mem- ber have presented a report on this sub- ject, with absolute unanimity, but I don ’t know whether that unanimity will be reflected in this Convention. Of course, it represents a very wide difference of opinion and points of view, but it may be we might get to agree upon some statement of public utilities that come within general terms, to be agreed upon. I don’t know whether it has been successful. So far as setting this for tomorrow afternoon is concerned, so far as I am personally concerned it will be absolutely impos- sible for me to attend at that time. I ; think there are a great many matters of this sort, routine matters that are coming up. But I understood this mat- ter was to be taken up this evening, and I had to choose between coming here this evening and coming here to- morrow, and as I cannot be here tomor- j row afternoon I decided to come this evening, that is the reason I am here, and one of the reasons for my coming this evening was because this subject would properly come up, and I am par- ticularly interested in this. I presume others will have the same- experience on other subjects. It seems to me it is a mistake to meet here when a particular subject is scheduled to come up and set it for the next day. We are all here now, and most of us that are here now are present, and we may be absent to- morrow. MR. CHURCH: I do not desire ar- bitrarily to fix the date when this shall be considered as tomorrow afternoon, but my point is this, that if we are go- ing to make special orders we should when we make them set a cretain time when they shall be taken up and considered, and if it is desirable to set this for Monday, or any other day, I am willing to have that done; but I don’t think it should be postopned indefinite- ly by making it a special order and then not naming a definite time, a definite hour. THE CHAIRMAN: This matter ought to be taken up immediately for disposition, because we are getting down to the end of our work where the other special orders will interfere. The question is whether we will have it now or tomorrow afternoon. MR. CHURCH: If it is desirous to go on now, I will change my motion. MR. JONES: I move that we start at once upon the consideration of Sec- tion 16. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion has been made and seconded that we start at once on Section 16. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed, no. The motion prevailed. THE CHAIRMAN : The Secretary will read No. 1, Section 16. The Secretary read No. 1, as it ap- pears in the proceedings at page 55. December 14 336 1906 MR. WERNO: I move the adoption of that section. MR. ZIMMER: I desire to second the motion. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion has been made and seconded. The matter is before the house for discussion. THE CHAIRMAN: As many as fa- vor that signify by saying aye. A VOICE: Roll call. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Baker, Beebe, Beilfuss, Ben- nett, Burke, Carey, Clettenberg, Dever, Dixon, G. W.; Eckhart, J. W.; Fisher, Guerin, .Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Line- han, MacMillan, McCormick, McGoorty, McKinley, Merriam, O’Donnell, Owens, Paullin, Powers, Rinaker, Robins, Snow, Taylor, Vopicka, Walker, Werno, White, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 36. Nays — Brown, Church, Hoyne, Pen- darvis, Raymer, Revell, Shanahan, Shep- ard, Smulski — 9. Absent or Not Voting — Badenoch, Brosseau, Cole, Crilly, Ritter, Dixon, T. J. ; Eckhart, B. A.; Eidmann, Erickson, Fitzpatrick, Foreman, Gansbergen, Gra- ham, Haas Harrison Hill, Hunter, Lundberg, Oehne, Patterson, Post, Rainey, Rosenthal, Sethness, Shedd, Sunny, Swift, Thompson, Wilson — 29. MR. SHANAHAN: I would like to explain my vote. If by this section it is understood we are voting in favor of municipal operation, I certainly want to vote no. I am in favor of municipal ownership, but I am not in favor of municipal operation. I vote no. MR. BENNETT: I desire to be re- corded aye. I was absent from roll call. MR. G. W. DIXON: I would like to have the absentees called. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bennett de- sires to be recorded aye. The absentee roll will be called. (During absentee roll call:) MR. HOYNE: Mr. Chairman, I passed this because I did not at this time want to vote on this proposition* I do not think it is fair to take a vote upon this question at this time in its present condition. I am opposed to mu- nicipal ownership. I do not believe it is a good thing. I do not think the city would get the best results out of it, and it has not been so of late. In my opinion the city has lost $1,000,000 a year by holding up and using this traction question as if it were a foot ball. One million dollars a year the city would have had as an additional revenue if this matter had been settled. And so with other matters. I do not think the telephone company or the electric light company or the gas com- pany — I believe franchises should be is- sued to every one of those companies; twenty-year franchises. I would like to see the city get the finances it de- serves. The city could have from the gas company, if it were voting right and just — the people should have ten cents a thousand from the gas company and that would give them many thou- sand dollars of revenue from the gas works. Also from the telephone com- pany, and the electric light company. I say the city is losing revenue by not giving franchises. You never knew of a municipal corporation or any other city or government corporation that got as much money out of a property or operated it as economically as a private corporation, and for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I now vote no on this propo- sition. MR. LINEHAN: That’s an abso- lute fact. You always get more money out of it. MR. SMULSKI: Mr. Chairman, I did not vote on this question before be- cause I did not fully understand the question. I did not wish to vote on it as I did not understand this paragraph, and therefore I did not vote for it with- out a full knowledge of what it means. For that reason I will now vote no. December 14 337 1906 ME. EEYELL: I ask that my vote be changed to “no.” ME. LATHBOP : Is it too late to give one’s reasons for one’s vote? THE CHAIRMAN : Do you desire to change your vote? ME. LATHBOP: No, but I ask for indulgence. I wish to know if it is too late now to give one’s reason for one’s vote. THE CHAIRMAN: By consent of the house. You may proceed. MR. LATHBOP: I vote for this sim- ply because I believe there is no objec- tion to the city having a right to acquire property. MR. FISHER: Hear, hear. MR. LATHBOP: But I am absolutely opposed to operation by the municipali- ties. MR. PENDARVIS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recorded as voting * * no. ’ ’ THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pendarvis votes “no.” MR. BURKE: How does Mr. Church vote ? THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Church? MR. BURKE: I would like to know how Mr. Church voted. MR. CHURCH: For the gentleman’s information I would like to say that Mr. Church did not vote, but he is now desirous as being recorded as voting “ no. ” . THE CHAIRMAN : Pendarvis “ no. ” Church “no.” MR. BROWN: I desire to change my vote to * ‘ no. ’ ’ THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brown de- sires to change his vote to * ‘ no. ’ ’ THE SECRETARY: Brown, “no.” MR. RINAKEE: Ordinarily I do not care to explain any vote that I am mak- ing, but with the consent of the house I would like to explain. (Cries of “Agreed.”) MR. RINAKER: I would like to say that I am in favor of the principle that the city has a right to own ; and I be- lieve that is the position I took when I voted ‘aye.” On the question of whether or not the city should exercise that right, that is a question of policy, in my judg- ment, which would be discussed whenever the city attempted to exercise that right. MR. FISHER: That’s right. MR. LINEHAN : If you don ’t hurry up, Mr. Secretary, there will be some more of them changing. THE CHAIRMAN: On the motion to adopt the yeas are 36 and the nays 9. The motion is carried. No. 2. The Secretary read No. 2 as it appears in the proceedings at page 55. MR. RAYMER: I move its adoption. THE CHAIRMAN: It is moved and seconded that section 2 be adopted. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The motion prevailed. THE CHAIRMAN: It is so ordered. Number three. The Secretary read No. 3 as it appears in the proceedings at page 55. MR. WERNO: Mr. Chairman, I move its adoption. MR. SHANAHAN: I would like a little explanation of that. MR. WERNO : It gives control of the streets. That is, when it gives authority to somebody to use a portion of a street for some public utility it does not give away all its rights in the street; it still has control of the street, that’s all. MR. McCORMICK: I remember an instance which is very much — or should be very much before the public today. By virtue of the authority conferred upon it the gas company had a tunnel in Dearborn street under the river. When the time came for the construction of the Dearborn street bridge the city claimed it had a prior right, and the gas company claimed its right was prior to the city. Without going into negotiations at which | t was not present and would not like to misrepresent, the Sanitary District — this was before my term of office — proceeded I to build Dearborn street bridge at a much December 14 338 1906 greater expense than would be necessary- had the gas company been compelled to take care of itself. An ambiguity of this kind should not remain in our law. Either the company has a prior right oyer the street or the city has the prior right, and that should be settled defi- nitely in Chicago. I therefore second Alderman Werno’s motion. ME. FISHER : Question. THE CHAIRMAN : All those in favor of the adoption of No. 3 will signify by saying aye ; opposed, no. The motion prevailed. THE CHAIRMAN: It is so ordered. Number four. The Secretary will read No. 4. The Secretary read No. 4, as it appears in the proceedings at page 55. MR. FISHER : Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of alternative No. 4, and in doing so I wish to explain what I under- stand to be the difference between that and the main proposition. Under the main proposition if in the grant there was expressed that a rate of fare of five cents should be for a certain specified period of time it could not thereafter be regulated. If thereafter a change was desired it could not be affected. If a rate were fixed at a certain sum, that, thereafter, could not be regulated. In other words, it says the city can make regulations and those regulations shall continue unless otherwise expressly pro- vided in the grant. So, if it is expressly provided in the grant you cannot regulate it. It seems to me that the provisions of the alternative are wise provisions, providing that the city shall always have the power to make reasonable regula- tions ; providing, however, that the ques- tion of the reasonableness of any such regulation shall always be determined with due regard to the provisions or limitation of the graut under which such public utility is being operated. For instance, if the grant did not provide for the payment of property at the end of the grant, or any provision to take care of it, or if the grant requires that they shall perform certain extraordin- ary services when the court comes to pass upon the reasonableness of this grant it shall take into consideration all the terms and conditions and shall consider the reasonableness in view of the exact or- dinance under which the public utility is being operated. It seems to me this is a wise limitation and in putting into the power of the City Council the power to fix public fares and such matters it will operate for the benefit of the city. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon the adoption of alternative No. 4, substitute No. 4. Are you ready for the question? Those in favor signify by saying MR. LATHROP: I am opposed to that provision, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me it is not in keeping with ordinary fair business dealings. If a city makes a 69 year lease and fixes the rate of rent it would be obviously unfair at any time to change that rent. If a grant is made I take it at the time the grant was made there must be some confidence between the power of making the grant and the company or the corporation accepting it. The terms of the grant are agreed upon. The corporation, it may be at a large expenditure of money, must mutu- ally agree on the conditions of that grant. It is one of the provisions to change that, and that, to my mind, is decidedly un- businesslike; and it strikes me as unfair. 1 am therefore opposed to the proposi- tion. MR, FISHER: Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted merely to answer the point which has just been made by Mr. Latlirop. I would say in answer to that, and I think it is a complete answer, that no corporation or individual or associa- tion would ever take a public utilities grant unless they like the terms of that graut; it will indicate that they agree with its provisions, and that they knew what was in there. It is like the re- valuation clause in land matters. It is December 14 339 1906 like the provisions reserved in other mat- ters. We reserve already, and it is con- ceded, under the police power, we must reserve under our provisions power re- quiring improvements and other things. Now there is a dispute in the court which is not yet fully settled, whether the right to regulate fares is strictly within the police powers or not. Those courts that hold that there is a right to' regu- late fares within the police powers, like the right to regulate service, hold that this provision is in the grant already. Those courts who do not require a con- struction of this kind hold to the con- trary. But no one can complain of unfairness. We all know that the gas company did in this city in the United States court set up a claim because in one statute it was fixed that $3 was the price of gas, and they had a right to maintain that rate, and any concession given below that was in the nature of gratuities and generosity to the city. Of course the court knocked it out, but that was their contention. Now the whole purpose is to say that no contention of that kind shall come up and be made; and the court is a safeguard and a pro- tection to property rights. The courts will always restrict the city to a reason- able regulation, and this thing expressly restricts it. I can see nothing unfair or unwise in it. 1 think it would be both unwise and unfair to the city if this regulation were not made. MR. SHEPARD: Personally, I am very thankful for the elucidation of the paragraph; and along that line I would like to ask a question. We have adopted section 3, which provides any consent or grant, etc., — I presume that means any consent hereafter granted. This is the alternative to No. 4. Such consent, which seems to relate back to section 3. Now, may the consent heretofore granted by the City Council on these conditions reserve to the power of the City Council to regrant? MR. FISHER: It could not mean any- thing else. We cannot pass expost facto laws if we wanted to. MR. SHEPARD: I suggest that such consent as thereafter may be granted be added to the clause. MR. FISHER: I accept that sug- gestion. MR. BURKE: Question. THE CHAIRMAN: Shall we have a roll call? (Cries of “No . ”) THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Fisher ’s mo- tion to substitute No. 4 is before the house for a vote. All those in favor say aye; opposed, no. MR. SHEPARD: As amended. THE CHAIRMAN: As amended. All those in favor say aye; those op- posed, no. Motion carried. The Sec- retary will read No. 5. The Secretary read No. 5 as it ap- pears in the proceedings at page 55. MR. WERNO: I move the adoption of that paragraph. THE CHAIRMAN: Any discussion? MR. BURKE : Question. THE CHAIRMAN: If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye; opposed, no. The motion is carried. No. 6. The Secretary read No. 6 as it ap- pears in the proceedings at page 55. MR. WERNO: Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of that. MR. SNOW : On that I desire to say a word. I can very readily understand the reasons which have induced the committee to report a provision of that kind, but it seems to me that the rea- sons on the other side are as strong or stronger. If that provision is adopted you place a power in the hands of the City Council of granting a franchise for a street railway upon any street in the City of Chicago regardless of the wishes of the persons who own property on that street. I have in mind a case affecting the ward which I, in part, represent. The franchise ordinance which is now being considered by the committee on local transportation providing among other December 14 340 1906 things that the building of a street rail- way upon a street through which they have no right at the present time, where no ordinance has been granted, and there has been a continual effort to secure frontage consents continually, and con- tinual failure to get them. If this pro- vision is inserted in the charter it will make it possible to destroy the streets — any street in Chicago, regardless of the property interests involved in the de- struction. Now it is all very well to say that the general good requires the build- ing of this line or that line, but I main- tain that the right of the property owner himself should be considered, and that ’if in a particular street the pro- perty frontages, the majority of them, do not desire the public utility — a street railway, if you please, upon that street, that they should be able to protect their property by refusing to give that con- sent. For that reason I believe this provision should be stricken out. ME. SHANAHAN: Mr. Chairman, I rise for information. I would like to hear from the committee that presented this, or the gentleman who was advo- cating it. If I remember correctly, some years ago a bill was introduced in the Illinois Legislature along these lines and after it had passed almost unani- mously the public press of the City of Chicago raised a clamor and said it was the worst sandbagging measure that ever went through the Illinois Legislature ; and every man who innocently voted for it was condemned by an organization af- terwards as a blackmailer. MR. FISHER : Mr. Chairman, I think there is a misapprehension about this section. There is a difference of opinion upon the question of frontage consents. However, it will be found on examina- tion that the frontage consent laws of every state practically have been adopted at the instance of the existing corpora- tions to prevent other corporations from entering into competition with them. That is the history of the gas frontage consent law in this state as is considered by every one familiar with that history. I think that is the measure to which Mr. Shanahan has reference. Maybe I am mistaken. If I am right, if that is what he has in mind, the gas frontage consent provision was a law which re- quired frontage consents before any competing gas company could start com- petition ; and the gas company, by se- curing a certain amount of property in their interest in every block, or in cer- tain blocks in a mile, were able to block the erection and maintenance and oper- ation of a competing gas company. At least, that was supposed and alleged to be the purpose. Now, I make that state- ment on general information without any particular information at all'. However, the Supreme Court of the State of Il- linois in two decisions has held that the frontage law is not intended for the protection of the individual property owners whose property abuts on a street, and in one case the Supreme Court of this state condemned as a practical be- trayal of public interests a situation where a property owner did exercise his right of consent with regard to his own personal . financial interests. They have condemned and prohibited the sale or purchase of frontage consents for that reason. They have said in precise lan- guage that the frontage consent law is not intended and should never be per- verted to the use of the abutting property owner, upon the question as to whether or not a particular thing would benefit or injure him. That its purpose is to advise the municipal authorities as to what the people on that street think is wise municipal policy. That it is only enacted to get an expression of opinion. Now, the question was discussed in com- mittee, and the only difference of opin- ion that arose was as to whether or not there should be certain territory, certain neighborhoods in a city which should be exempt ; and this resolution was adopted for the purpose of enabling the December 14 341 1906 City Council to pick out any neigh- borhood that it wanted and by an or- dinance to provide that frontage consents must be obtained in residence neighbor- hoods. For instance, suppose the City of Chicago, in the development of the street railroad system, should want to extend the system for a half a dozen blocks, and that either in the hands of the city or of a private corporation, and should come to the conclusion that the proper development of the street railway system required the location of tracks upon a certain number of blocks in a certain street. That not to do it would dwarf and thwart the proper develop- ment of the street railway system in the hands of a private corporation, let us say, and the property owners on that street combined together and refused to give frontage consents, for any reason. They could effectually block the whole enterprise. I am directly interested in this proposition. I happen to live in a neighborhood which is as good an illus- tration as any. I live on North State street, north of Division. North State street, from Division street north to North avenue, a few blocks, has been boulevarded; south of that it has not; where I live it has not been, boulevarded. Every now and then the question arises that the proper development of the street railway system on the north side would require that the street railway on North State street should be extended a cer- tain number of blocks north so that they would be able to turn west at that point. It has been at various times contended that there should be a street railway on North State street up to North avenue, and from North avenue across, instead of stopping at Division street. That we are in a congested district, and that in order to get the necessary north and south avenues there should be another street. Personally, I should regret it extremely. 1 think it would be an injury to my property, but if the City of Chi- cago in the development of that system, should come to the conclusion that it was absolutely necessary to properly de- velop the street railway system, that tracks should be laid on that street, the question is a fair question as to whether or not the property owners liv- ing there, by merely withholding frontage consents, should be able to block the proposition. As the law now stands they could. Now, the whole question is in that shape. So it is with regard to the downtown streets. If the City of Chicago wants to locate any street rail- way upon any street in the business dis- trict or elsewhere it must get frontage consents, if there are no street railways located on there now. Now, the question is, should we have a general frontage law, or should we vest in the City Coun- cil of the City of Chicago the right to fix the provisions of a frontage consent regulation which should apply to the City of Chicago. That, for instance, in certain districts or on certain lines, or where there are certain lines outside of a certain limitation, that no line should be located nearer an existing line than a quarter of a mile, without obtaining the frontage consents of the people living on the street where the line was to be located, and so on. And the question is not free from doubt, but it is a fair question, a perfectly fair question as to whether or not the interests of this city and of the property owners of this city as a whole are not better preserved if the City Council is vested with the privilege of passing an ordinance of that sort, rather than to have a general state law. If you have a general state law it would not be possible or wise for the Legislature at Springfield to say that within the territory bounded by Halsted street on the west and a certain street on the north, and another on the south, and Lake Michigan, that frontage con- sents are not necessary, and that outside of that district they are; and yet the City of Chicago might very wisely pass an ordinance of that character or of some December 14 342 1906 other character of which that is an illus- tration, the subject being left entirely in the hands of the City Council. Now, are gentlemen afraid, really seriously afraid, that if the City Council has the right to pass general frontage consent regulations, that anybody whose pro- perty really ought to be protected is go- ing to have it taken away from them. Personally I have no such fear. I be- lieve the City Council of the City of Chicago will legislate as wisely and as conservatively and with as due regard to the interests of the property owners as the State Legislature would, and that there would be more flexibility in the law if this rule w^as adopted. THE CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen, you have heard the question. The question is on the adoption of No. 6. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Beebe, Carey, Dever, Fisher, Linehan, Owens, Robins, Taylor, Yopicka, Walker, Werno, Zimmer — 14. Nays — Baker, Beilfuss, Bennett, Brown, Burke, Church, Clettenberg, Eekhart, J. W., Guerin, Hoyne, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, MacMillan, Mc- Cormick, McKinley, O’Donnell, Powers, Raymer, Revell, Rinaker, Shanahan, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Young — 26. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the motion to adopt No. 6 of Section XYI. the yeas are 14, and the nays are 26, and the mo- tion is lost. MR. McCORMICK : Mr. Chairman, Mr. Eekhart has a resolution here. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair was about to call it up. MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Eekhart said he was perfectly willing, — he could not stay himself — to have it go over till tomorrow. THE CHAIRMAN : If there is no ob- jection it will take that course. MR. SNOW : I desire a point of in- formation. THE CHAIRMAN: Sir? MR. SNOW : I desire to know wheth- er, under the practice of the Convention, it will be possible to offer additional pro- positions at a later date to be included in this draft of public utilities. THE CHAIRMAN: I see no objec- tion to it, sir. MR. SHEPARD: 1 move that w T e now adjourn until 2 o ’clock tomorrow after- noon. MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman, should it not be understood that in this matter, as in all others, if such resolutions are introduced they will be deferred and published. MR. SNOW: Certainly. THE CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and seconded that the Convention adjourn until 2 o ’clock tomorrow, and it is so ordered. And the Convention stood adjourned to meet Saturday, December 15, 1906, at 2 o ’clock p. m. December 14 343 1906 MEMORANDA. These memoranda indicate the various matters adopted by the Convention. (See page 50 and succeeding pages of the proceedings. I. SCOPE OF PROPOSED LEGIS- LATION. Action on all paragraphs under this section has been deferred. II. CONSOLIDATION. 1. The corporate authorities existing at present for the government of the park systems of Chicago shall be abol- ished and the management of the parks shall become a department of the city government. 2. The administration of the public school system of the city of Chicago and of the Public Library shall con- stitute departments of the city govern- ment. III. THE MAYOR. 1. The charter shall continue sub- stantially the provisions of the pres- ent laws regarding the qualifications and executive functions of the mayor. 2. The charter shall continue the provisions of the present laws regard- ing the relation of the mayor to the city council. Resolved, that it is the sense of this Convention that a clause be inserted in the charter designating a city official who shall act as mayor during the ab- sence or inability of the mayor. First Alternative to 2 b. The mayor shall have a right to a seat in the city council, but shall have no vote. He shall have the right to speak and present messages and intro- duce measures subject to the general rules of procedure of the city council. Second Alternative to 2: The charter shall continue the pres- ent provisions of the law regarding the relation of the mayor to the city coun- cil, except that he shall not preside at the meetings of the city council, but the city council shall elect its own presiding officer from its members. 3. The veto power of the mayor shall be as now prescribed by law. 4. The term of office of the mayor shall be four years. IY. ELECTIONS. First alternative to 1 : Elective city officers shall be nominated under a sys- tem of direct primaries, with appropri- ite provision for independent nomina- tions by petition. 2. The names of all the nominees for each office shall be printed on the ballot under the title of the office for which they are candidates, in alphabeti- cal order, and the designation of the party, if any, to which they belong. The following resolution on the sub- ject of suffrage for women is still pend- ing: 3. The charter shall contain no pro- vision for conferring the right of suf- frage on women. 4. a. The election of all city offi- cers, including those for the municipal court, shall be held in the spring. Pro- vided, however, that judges of the mu- nicipal court shall be elected at a time when no offices other than judicial are to be filled. 5. Candidates and political commit- tees shall be required to make sworn statements of receipts and expenditures of any campaign for nomination or election. December 14 344 1906 V. CIVIL SERVICE. 1. All departments of the city gov- ernment shall be under an appropriate civil service law. Alternative to 1 : a. The civil service law shall apply to the department of public parks. The application of the civil service law to the department of public parks shall not operate in and of itself to dis- charge the present employees. b. The civil service law shall apply to the municipal court. The Bailiff and Chief Clerk of the Municipal Court shall be subject to re- moval by a majority of the judges of the court, after a hearing, for incompe- tency, inefficiency, malfeasance or mis- feasance in office. The reasons for such removal shall be specified in writing and shall be spread at large upon the records of the court. Section 2 of Civil Service, together with resolution printed in the proceed- ings of December 6, have been referred to the Committee on Municipal Elec- tions, Appointment and Tenure of Office, with instructions to report to the Con- vention within ten days. VI. THE CITY COUNCIL. The charter shall provide for redis- tricting the city into seventy wards, of compact and contiguous territory, and with an equitable distribution of area and population, as soon as possible after the adoption of this charter, one aider- man to be • elected from each ward. The city shall thereafter be redis- tricted by the City Council every ten years after the federal census has been takep, but no more than seventy wards shall be made. 2. The compensation of aldermen sl}all be at the rate of thirty-five hun- dred dollars per annum. The term of office of aldermen shall be four years. The aldermen shall be elected at the same time as the mayor. VII. POWERS OF THE CITY COUN- CIL IN GENERAL. 1. The powers of the city council shall be as now prescribed by law, ex- cept as modified by this charter. The city council shall have all powers of local legislation which can, under the con- stitution, be vested in a municipality; subject to the constitution of the state, the provisions of the charter, and the general laws of the state. 2. The specification of particular powers shall never be construed as a limitation upon the general powers granted by the charter; it being in- tended to grant and bestow upon the City of Chicago all the powers of mu- nicipal government which can constitu- tionally be delegated to it by the legislature, and which are not expressly prohibited to it by this charter, or by the constitution of the state; an4 are not in conflict with any general law of the state. 3. No ordinance shall be passed finally on the day it is introduced, except when approved by an affirmative vote of two- thirds of all the members of the city council. VIII. POWERS OF THE CITY COUN- CIL WITH REGARD TO OFFICES. The office of City Clerk shall cease to be a Charter office, and the City Council shall have power by ordinance to provide for the method of choosing the City Clerk and to provide for the duty of the ,City- Clerk. The City Treasurer shall be ex-officio city collector. 3. The City Council shall have power to investigate any department of .the city, government and the official acts and eonduct any city officer and the making, terms, and performance of December 14 345 1906 any public contract, and for the purpose of ascertaining facts in connection with such investigation to compel the attend- ance of witnesses and the production of material documents and books. IX. POLICE POWER. 1. The police power of the city shall extend to the prevention of crime, to the preservation and advancement of local peace, safety, morals, health, order and comfort, and to the prevention of fraud and extortion within the community, by measures of regulation, licensing, require- ment of bonds, inspection, registration, restraint and prohibition, as well as by the establishment of municipal services. X. REVENUE. Section X and alternative stand as a special order. XI. INDEBTEDNESS. 1. The charter shall vest in the city the power to assume and incur debts and issue bonds in the manner and to the extent that such power is permitted to be granted by the constitutional amendment of 1904. XI r. EXPENDITURES. 1. The provisions of the present city act regarding the annual appropriation ordinanc, the limitation of expendi- tures and contracts by such appropria- tions, the keeping of a separate fund for each appropriation, and the require- ment of warrants for payments, shall be substantially embodied in the charter. XIII. PROPERTY. 1. The city may acquire property by purchase or condemnation for any pur- pose for which it may exercise the power of taxation. The following paragraphs, together with all substitutes and amendments thereto as printed in the proceedings of December 14, 1906, have been re-re- ferred to the Committee on Rules, Pro- cedure and General Plan. 2. The city may so acquire property outside of as well as within the city lim- its for any municipal purpose. XIV. CONTRACTS. 1. Municipal services may be per- formed and municipal works carried out by the city directly or by means of con- tract. XV. STREETS AND PUBLIC PLACES. All paragraphs of Section XV are de- ferred to be considered together with the subject of Revenue. XVI. PUBLIC UTILITIES. 1. The provisions of the Mueller law and the limitations contained therein (including the twenty-year limit on franchises), except as herein otherwise provided, shall be extended to all in- tramural railways, subways, telephone, telegraph, gas, electric lighting and power plants, and other local public utility works operated in, over, under or upon the streets and public places of the city, also to docks, wharves and their necessary appurtenances. 2. The present powers regarding water works and water supply shall be con- tinued. 3. Any consent granted by the city for the private operation of public util- ity works shall be made subject to the continuing exercise of the city ’s street and police powers concerning the struc- ture or works permitted, whether re- served in the grant or not. Alternative to 4: Such consent hereafter granted, shall further be subject to' the power of the city, whether expressly reserved in the grant or not, to make reasonable regu- lations of the charges to be made in the operation of such public utilities. December 14 346 1906 The city shall have no power to grant away or limit the subsequent exercise of this right, except thafthe question of rea- sonableness of any such regulation shall always be determined with due regard to the provisions and limitations of the grant under which such public utility is being operated. 5. Such consent shall further be sub- ject to the right of the city to require adequate service and reasonable exten- sions at all times. Resolutions offered from the floor of the Convention, but not acted upon. BY ME. BENNETT: XXII. 5. SECTION Nothing in this act shall be construed to modify, impair or affect or to confer upon the city coun- cil power to pass any ordinance modi- fying, impairing or conflicting with the provisions of Section 18 of an act en- titled “An act to provide for the an- nexation of cities, incorporated towns and villages or parts of same to cities, incorporated towns and villages” ap- proved April 25th, 1889, or to any pro- vision of any law of Illinois relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors or creat- ing or defining criminal offenses or relat- ing to tfle prosecution and punishment thereof, nor shall any amendment or addition be made to the charter of the City of Chicago, except by the General Assembly, by which this section, or any part thereof shall, directly or indirectly, be abrogated, repealed or annulled. BY. ME. SHEPAED: Eesolved, That in any act providing for the formation and disbursement of the police pension fund the following provision be incorporated: That the members of the police de- partment to be included in the bene- fits of such pension fund shall be as follows: The General Superintendent of Po- lice, Assistant General Superintendent of Police, Inspectors, Captains, Lieu- tenants, Sergeants, Patrolmen, Patrol Drivers, Superintendent of Horses, Su- perintendent of Construction, Superin- tendent Bureau of Identification, As- sistant Superintendent Bureau of Iden- tification, Secretary of the Police De- partment, Private Secretary to the Gen- eral Superintendent of Police, Police Custodian Stolen Property, Chief Clerk Secretary's office, Clerk in Secretary's office, Chief Clerk in Detective Bu- reau, Chief Operator, Assistant Chief Operator, Operators, Drillmaster, Chief Matron, Matrons, Feed Inspector, De- partment Printer, Vehicle Inspectors, Photographer, Assistant Photographer, Stenographers, Supply Drivers, Finger Print Expert and such other mem- bers as may hereafter be provided for by ordinance. BY ME. BENNETT: Resolved, that the present laws re- lating to firemen's pensions be retained and included in the charter. BY MESSES WEENO AND EOSEN- THAL: Chapter 7, section 1, alternative 1. In addition to all the legislative powers now conferred upon it by the general cities and villages act and the amendments thereof, the charter shall vest in the city council the power to regulate the legal observance of the weekly day of rest, commonly called Sunday; and the sale of liquors by bona fide athletic, charitable, edu- cational, fraternal, musical and social associations, corporations and societies December 14 347 1906 at social gatherings, or entertainments conducted or held by them only; and in general all powers of local legisla- tion which may under the constitution be vested in a municipality. BY MR. B. A. ECKHART : No city officer or employee shall di- rectly or indirectly ask for, demand or accept for his own use, or for the use of another, any free pass, frank, gratuitous service, or discrimination from any per- son or corporation holding or using any franchise, privilege, or license granted by the city. But this prohibition shall not extend to the furnishing of free transportation to police officers while on duty. The charter shall contain appropriate provisions for the enforcement of this prohibition. BY MR, BROWN: Permission shall not be given to any person to retain any goods, fruits or vegetables from a wagon or other vehicle. SPECIAL ORDERS For Week Beginning Monday, December 10. SECTION X. — Revenue, at page 53. SECTION XY. — Streets and Public Places, at page! 54. SECTION XVII. — Education, at page 56. PARAGRAPH 3.— Suffrage, at page 52. CORRECTIONS. MR. SHANAHAN : On page 92, first column : Line 13, insert word “ speak ’ 9 instead of “come. ” MR. SHANAHAN: On page 101, second column: Line 22, after the word 1 ‘ then ’ 9 add “who shall.” MR. SHEDD: On page 128, first column, second line, strike out “in a” and insert therefor : 1 1 eliminating the . 9 9 Also, in the third line, after the word “paper,” insert “but retaining the par- ty column.” MR. POST: On page 130, second column, fifth line from bottom, sub- stitute the word “constitutional” for the word “satisfactory.” MR. SHEPARD: On page 134, first column, last paragraph, fifth line, strike out “that is, that all municipal officers and city officers, including the municipal court judges shall be elected in the spring” and insert therefor: “that is, that all city officers shall be elected in the spring at one and the same election, except the municipal court judges.” MR. SHANAHAN: On page 159, first column, next to last line, strike out “it along” and insert “about its passage. ’ 9 MR. WERNO: On page 161, left hand column, line 25, strike out the word “has” and insert in lieu thereof the word “have.” Also on page 161, right hand column, 13th line, strike out the words “to give” and insert in lieu thereof the words “who gives.” MR. LINEHAN: On page 162, first column, next to last line, strike out word “devoted” and insert “di- vorced.” Also same column, last line, strike out word “to” and insert “from.” Also, same page, second col- umn, first line, strike out “we are pro- posing” and insert “a proposal.” December 14 348 1906 ME. POWERS: On page 166, sec- ond column, fourth, fifth and sixth lines, strike out “Well, can't he do that without the consent of this Conven- tion?" and insert in lieu thereof “He cannot do that without the consent of this Convention. ’ ’ MR. SHANAHAN: On page 170, first column, fourth line, after the word “entrance" insert the following: “to the service protected by the law." MR. PENDARVIS: Page 179, first column; strike out entire line, and in- sert in lieu thereof: “that fact we put into the," also, same page, same column, in fourth line from bottom, insert the word “meet" for “leave." MR. REYELL: Page 179, about cen- ter of the last column, strike our the four last words. MR. REYELL: Page 181, strike out the sentence or paragraph commencing with “It seems to me if the duty" and ending with “that will at least let them out of it," and insert the following: “It seems to me that as between an appointment by the judge of the Mu- nicipal Court and an appointment by the Chief Justice of that court, which latter might be influenced by the County Cen- tral Committee — as suggested by Aider- man Raymer — the latter would be pre- ferable, as it would eliminate the other twenty-seven or twenty-eight judges of the Municipal Court from political in- fluence. It is doubtful, however, if the Chief Justice could be influenced by anybody or anyone toward the appoint- ment of an incompetent man. ’ ’ MR. YOPICKA: Page 214, second column, twelfth line of paragraph, strike out words “a movement" and insert “an improvement." sition" to “provision"; also, same page, same column, line 26, change the word “of" to “by." MR. YOPICKA: On page 226, sec- ond column, correct as follows: “Mr. Chairman. — If Mr. Rosenthal will change his amendment to read $3,500 minimum and $5,000 maximum, you will get men of more intelligence to seek the office; make it a minimum salary of $3,500 and a maximum of $5,000, and not more than that." MR. LINEHAN: I would like to have inserted in the records at page 253, column 2, anywhere there, the fol- lowing paragraph, which was a part of Mr. Fisher’s speech, and was left out wholly, as follows: “ * * * Mr. Linehan, to speak plainly, is in sympathy with the present mayor, for this reason. He is willing that the term of office of the mayor should be four years, but objects to the aldermanic term being lengthened. I ask him if he would be of the same mind if he were opposed to the mayor, but was in sympathy with the city coun- cil, which had to seek re-election every two years." MR. FISHER: I must object to the insertion of this language as being my exact language; that is not exactly what I stated. I think it does fairly state the sense of what was stated, but the remark which I made was that Mr. Line- han was in favor of the policies of the present mayor. I don ’t know whether he is in favor of the present mayor or opposed to the present mayor, but I do understand that he is in favor of the policies of the present mayor. MR. PENDARVIS: On page 257, second column, line 3, insert the word “ to " in place of 1 1 on. ’ ’ MR. DEVER : On page 299, first col- umn, fifth line of the remarks, omit the word ‘ ‘ not. ’ ’ Also, after the word ‘ ‘ certain, ’ ’ add * 1 general state. ’ 1 MR. PENDARVIS: Page 226, second column, line 24, change the word “po- PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER SATURDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1906 (Hhiratju (Elmrtrr (Eonurutiun Convened, December 12, i 905 Headquarter* 171 WASHINGTON STREET TELEPHONE MAIN 4877 MilYon J. Foreman, .... Chairman Alexander H. Revell, Vice-Chairman M. L. McKinley Secretary Henry Barrett Chamberlin, Abbt Sec y . December 15 351 1906 PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Regular Meeting, Saturday, December 15, 1906 2:00 O’clock P. M., in the City Council Chamber OFFICIAL RECORD Published by authority of the Chicago Charter Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: The Convention will come to order and the Secretary will call the roll. Present — Foreman, Chairman, and trBfeebe, Bennett, Brosseau, Brown, * Burke, Carey, Church, Cole, Crilly, De- -^ver, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., L Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Gansbergen, Guerin, Hill, Hunter, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, Lundberg, MacMil- lan, McCormick, McGoorty, McKinley, Merriam, O’Donnell, Owens, Pendarvis, Rainey, Raymer, Revell, Rinaker, Rob- ins, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Shedd, Shep- ard, Smulski, Snow, Sunny, Taylor, Vo- picka, Werno, Young, Zimmer — 49. Absent — Badenoch, Baker, Beilfuss, Clettenberg, Ritter, Dixon, T. J., Erick- son, Fisher, Fitzpatrick, Graham, Haa=, Harrison, Hoyne, Oehne, Paullin, Pat- terson, Post, Powers, Sethness, Swift, Thompson, Walker, White, Wilkins, Wil- son — 25. THE CHAIRMAN: Quorum present. Are there any corrections or amend- ments to the minutes'? If not, they stand approved as the minutes of the last meeting. The first matter before the Conven- tion is the resolution introduced by Mr. Eckhart at the last meeting. MR. B. A. ECKHART: I move the adoption of the resolution. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read Mr. Eckhart ’s resolution. THE SECRETARY: Page 347, “By Mr. B. A. Eckhart: No city officer or employe shall directly or indirectly ask for, demand or accept for his own use, or for the use of another, any free pass, frank, gratuitous service or dis- crimination from any person or corpo- ration holding or using any franchise, privilege or license granted by the city. But this prohibition shall not ex- tend to the furnishing of free transpor- tation to police officers while on duty. The charter shall contain appropriate provisions for the enforcement of this prohibition. ’ 1 December 15 352 1906 THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Eckhart moves the adoption of this resolution. The Chair desires to call attention to the fact that in some city ordinances firemen are also exempt. MR. ZIMMER: Letter carriers, also, on the elevated lines, and so forth. THE CHAIRMAN: What will you do with the resblution? MR. O’DONNELL: I move to amend it by inserting the word “fire- men” after “policemen,” so that it shall read: “Policemen and firemen.” Have you any objection to that, Mr. Eckhart? MR. B. A. ECKHART: No, I have no objection. THE CHAIRMAN: Is that satisfac- tory to you, Mr. Eckhart? MR. B. A. ECKHART: Yes. MR. MacMILLAN: If, later on, the parks become a part of the city, would the park policemen then, under those circumstances, be city police officers? MR. O’DONNELL: Yes, certainly. MR. B. A. ECKHART: I think they would be a part of the city government. MR. MacMILLAN: They would be covered by that? MR. O’DONNELL: Yes. MR. ROSENTHAL: I move to add the word “gratuity,” so that it will read 1 1 free pass, frank, gratuity or gratuitous service or discrimination.” MR. LINEHAN: I would like to know from some of the aldermen who are acquainted with the situation if there are not certain provisions con- nected with the city departments where passes are issued? I don’t know just exactly what the situation is. THE CHAIRMAN: You mean city officers? MR. LINEHAN: I know some fran- chises connected with railroads, if I mistake not, the elevated, some elevated franchises have a provision allowing officers in plain clothes, that is, such as a detective sergeant, or some one like that. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I don’t know anything about that. The ele- vated ordinance, if I mistake not, in- cludes policemen, firemen and letter car- riers. The City of Chicago itself pays out large sums .of money every year for car fare for its employes. The Secre- tary will add the words that have been suggested, and then the matter will be read again. THE SECRETARY: After “frank” add 1 ‘ gratuity. ’ ’ Is that right, Mr. Ro- senthal? MR. ROSENTHAL: “Gratuity,” and put a comma after it. THE SECRETARY: What was the other amendment? MR. O’DONNELL: “Firemen,” “policemen and firemen.” MR. McGOORTY : I would like to offer the following as an amendment, in lieu of that THE CHAIRMAN: Speak a little louder, Mr. McGoorty. MR. McGOORTY: In lieu of the words “police officers and firemen,” as the amendment now stands, that it be “members of the police and fire de- partments. ’ ’ MR. B. A. ECKHART: I accept that amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: Is it satisfac- tory to you? MR, B. A. ECKHART: Yes, sir; that is satisfactory. THE SECRETARY: “Members of the police and fire departments. ’ ’ MR. O’DONNELL: Question. THE CHAIRMAN: “No city officer or employe shall, directly or indirectly, ask for, demand or accept for his own use, or for the use of another, any free pass, frank, gratuity, gratuitous service or discrimination from any person or corporation holding or using any fran- chise, privilege or license granted by the city, but this prohibition shall not ex- tend to furnishing free transportation to members of the police and fire de- partments while on duty. The charter December 15 353 1 906 shall contain appropriate provisions for the enforcement of this prohibition.” MR. SNOW: I have no intention of opposing the resolution, but it strikes me very decidedly that this is a pro- vision that should be in the code, and not in the charter; and also that it may work some difficulty in the relations be- tween the city and the street car com- panies. For example, where the city might desire to provide in the franchise that certain classes of its own employes who are compelled to travel through the city will be carried free. I have in mind inspectors from the Health De- partment, and inspectors from other de- partments; various classes of inspect- ors, whose duties require that they travel over the city. And again, the question comes up as to what would be the effect of a pro- vision of this kind in the charter upon the deputy bailiffs of the municipal courts. It seems to me we may be limit- ing ourselves more than we intend to. I think this really is a matter for the code, rather than the charter. I sim- ply throw this out as a suggestion to the members of the convention, without any desire to oppose the principle that is in- volved here. MR. B. A. ECKHART: I believe this — that this provision ought to go in the charter. For five or six years the ques- tion of issuing and granting special privileges to elective and appointive officers has been agitating this country, so that the national government has taken steps to check it. We are all aware of the fact that many years ago it was a mark of distinction when a man could pull out a pass on a railroad train, or at any other place, and the practice became so common that it was considered in many instances to be in the nature of a bribe. We know that the practice was so common that the franchise corporations were compelled to issue passes, not only to officials and employes, but to their friends. It was frequently carried to such an extreme that if they refused to issue passes the officials and the employes sought re- venge; so that the evil cut both ways. I think that we are to-day practical- ly of one mind upon the subject of the issuing of passes to officials and em- ployes of a municipality or city officers. The practice should be discontinued, and the only effective way of doing that is to incorporate the provision in the charter, and not leave it to the Common Council to determine, or depend upon the code containing such provision. If the practice is one that is not justi- fied, then there should be no objection to having it embodied in the charter. I think it ought to go in. MR. COLE: After about ten or eleven years of more or less activity in local affairs, I have come to the con- clusion that one of the best things to be done for the City of Chicago or the United States would be to eliminate the word “pass” from the English lan- guage; not even do I except firemen or policemen from that reservation. I am in favor of the adoption of the reso- lution as offered. MR. SHEPARD: I would like to ask Mr. Eekhart if that is going to in- clude firemen and policemen, or except him, should it not also except the dep- uty bailiff? Under the municipal court law deputy bailiffs are paid wholly by the city, and their expenses for car fare are liable to amount to 25 or 5’0 cents per day in the discharge of city duties. Now, the street car question of letting franchises with compensation clauses like that enters into it very largely, and if policemen are to be included in the exception, I suggest the propriety of including the bailiffs, or leave it for the City Council to regulate that in some manner with the street car com- panies, so that the city won't have to pay that out of its treasury. J think the same rule should apply 354 1906 ^December 15 to the deputy bailiffs that would ap- ply to police officers. MR. COLE: I would like to ask the gentleman a question. THE CHAIRMAN: All right. MR. COLE: Is it not a fact that fees are collected there? Is that not a fee court ? MR. SHEPARD: Oh, yes; it is self- sustaining or supposed to be. MR. COLE: It is supposed to be, but it is not self-sustaining. They earn fees and turn them into the treasurer; the fees of the bailiff’s office are turned into the city treasurer, and the city must pay the expense of maintenance of the bailiff’s office. The only differ- ence between the bailiff and the others would be that he expends this car fare in the discharge of his duty, whereas police officers or firemen might be sim- ply expending it going to and from their homes, not strictly in the discharge of their duty. MR. McGOORTY : Mr. Chairman, I think it would be an unfortunate prece- dent to start out with the proposition that the officers of a court should be un- der any obligations whatsoever to the public service corporations of this city. I think it is clearly within the scope of the municipal court act that the neces- sary mileage of officers involved by the fulfillment of public seryice should be paid for out of the receipts of the office; but to say that one who is vested with power such as a deputy bailiff has, that he has to accept favors at the hands of these corporations who are constantly appearing in our courts, would, I think, be unwise. I hope the Convention will not seriously consider including the bailiffs. MR. SHEPARD: Would it be in fa- vor of a bailiff or in favor of the city? MR. McGOORTY: I can answer that question by saying that taking into consideration human nature, the indi- vidual accepting the pass — the effect of that is likely to make him feel that he has to give something in return. I think that he should be entirely free and untrammeled, and feel that his serv- ices are wholly due to the court of which he is a part. MR. CHURCH: Mr. Chairman, I think the grounds on which Mr. Shep- ard based his argument was that it should be considered in the nature of a compensation that is to be fixed by the city, and will not be regarded as a fa- vor extended to this class of officers. I think there is more reason, a great deal, why the bailiffs of the municipal court should be given transportation within the city than there is why the firemen should. I cannot conceive of any in- stance where a fireman would have to use the transportation lines of this city in the performance of his duties. There may be such a case, but I cannot con- ceive of any. I think the bailiffs should be included. MR. JONES: In listening to the reading of this resolution, Mr. Chair- man, I understand that there is noth- ing in this resolution which should prevent the City Council in grafting a franchise to a street railway company to require as a part of the consideration that the railroad company should fur- nish transportation to certain enumer- ated employes of the city. For instance, if it was a part of the consideration for which the railroad company was given a franchise by the city, that it should furnish transportation for certain em- ployes of the Public Works Department working upon the streets, or of the Park Department working upon the streets and boulevards. I would under- stand that would not be a gratuitous service, but would be a service for which the city pays. Now, if that is a cor- rect interpretation of the resolution, I should favor it; but if it is not, it seems to me that some amendment should be offered which would not pro- hibit the city in making any franchise December 15 355 1906 contract with a public service corpora- tion from accepting as a part of the payment the price for transportation services for city employes. THE CHAIRMAN: Any further dis- cussion on Mr. Rosenthal's proposition? MR. ROSENTHAL: This discussion, I think, well illustrates the point made by Mr. Snow as an absolutely correct one; and that it would be a great mis- take for us to attempt to incorporate at this time in the charter a provision about which we are not certain. I have, therefore, drafted a substitute which I would like to send to the desk. I have not gotten it all written out, and I will, therefore, read it. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Rosen- thal: The City Council shall have full power to forbid city officers and em- ployes, or any of the same, with or without exceptions, directly or indi- rectly, asking for, demanding or ac- cepting, either for his own use or for the use of another, any free pass, frank, gratuity, gratuitous service, or dis- crimination from any person or corpora- tion holding or using any franchise, privilege or license granted by the city, or furnishing any supplies, materials or commodities to the city, and to pre- scribe punishment for the violation of any such provision or provisions. MR. O'DONNELL: Is this amend- ment before the house? THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. O'Donnell. MR. O'DONNELL: Mr. Chairman, I think the correct principle is enun- ciated and set forth in the original reso- lution. I am opposed to the principle of the city dickering with the public franchise corporations on the pittance of gratuitous services to some of the city employes. The city should pay the fares of the employes of the city or any charge that is exacted for service by any of these corporations just as well as the hum- blest citizen. I agree with Mr. Cole on that, with the mental reservation that I think every city employe should be •stricken out, because the thing is per- nicious. It has been overdone. It has thwarted the enforcement of law here for many years. And then about bail- iffs: I think Mr. Shepard — and I agree with Mr. Shepard generally — but I think he should consider what a terrible thing it would be to give the bailiffs gratuitous services from many of these public franchise corporations. They se- lect the jurors. They go after the jurors; they summon jurors. They have them in charge. They subpoena wit- nesses. They are court officers. These corporations have their quota of cases in court. We want to keep the foun- tain springs of justice free from pollu- tion. This is the little petty graft that has been going on, and it should be stopped. The men of this Convention should speak in no uncertain terms of it now. I am opposed to the principle of hav- ing certain of the street car franchise holders saying that an officer shall ride free. Why, the principle of that is wrong; it is pernicious. The people do not want this; nor such a clause as that in the charter, or in an ordinance granted to any such corporation. This is the sprat to catch the salmon. It has been used here for years. Let us not be mistaken about it or deluded by it. I am in favor of the original resolu- tion as presented by Mr. Eckhart, with the possible exception of exempting po- licemen and firemen. They are officials removed in so many degrees from any pernicious activity, although the police department is right on the line. The police officer is the first law officer; the first court; and if he is a proper man he can save both the citizens and the public a great deal of time and trouble; and he can insist on the enforcement of laws that may take a great deal of expenditure of money to enforce. If a policeman is a right man, lie acts as the first court and as the first law offi- December 15 356 1906 cer, and it is his duty to act impar- tially. I am opposed to the substitute, and I am in favor of the original resolution as offered by Mr. Eekhart. THE CHAIRMAN: Will the Secre- tary read Mr. Rosenthal’s substitute? The Secretary read Mr. Rosenthal’s substitute as hereinbefore printed. MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Rosenthal a question on this motion. Is it the spirit of that amendment that the City Council should have the power to decide whether or not it should prohibit the acceptance and use of parties and gratuities, etc.? MR. RQSENTHAL: The object of that is to leave this matter to the City Council. So far as my motion is con- cerned, it leaves it to the City Council, where it properly belongs, unless we pass a general law. We can spend the whole afternoon to-day, Mr. Jones, it seems to me, if we were to consider what exceptions we ought to make, and in what cases we should make excep- tions, if we considered the different de- partments of the city administration. All of that can well be left to the City Council to pass on. MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to leaving this matter to the City Council. I believe that it is a fact that all the men in the City Coun- cil have accepted these gratuitous services, and I do not believe that we should continue to leave this within the power of the City Council to prohibit the taking of passes or to permit them as they please. The people of the City of Chicago are expressing their views through the charter, and it seems to me that the charter should contain an instruction to the City Council as to the views of the people upon this point. Now, I see no reason why the resolution should not pass, even without any refer- ence to policemen and firemen; because the passage of the resolution in the broad form will not prevent the city at any time from making a contract with any franchise corporation for such services as it may find necessary in connection with any particular class of employes. MR. B. A. ECKHART: Mr. Chair- man, I believe that the City Council has the power now to prohibit, and I do not believe the City Council has ever exercised that power. If it has, I am not aware of it. MR. BENNETT: There is such an ordinance on the books now. MR. B. A. ECKHART: Is it in force? MR. BENNETT: That I cannot say. We do not execute the laws. MR. B. A. ECKHART: Now, I be- lieve, Mr. Chairman, that we have the right to express our views upon this subject in emphatic language, so that it cannot be disregarded and so that it will be mandatory, and for that rea- son I am of the opinion that it ought to go into the charter and not be left with the City Council. It may be con- ceded that the present City Council would adopt such an act or pass such an ordinance. I have no doubt that they would do so. But we do not know what the City Council of five or ten years hence may think of that proposition. We do not know what influence may be brought to bear upon the City Council to have them change their minds, and it ought to be fixed, and that fact is recognized by anybody who has given thought to public matters throughout the country. There may be some reason why this should not be incorporated in the char- ter, but I have not heard any reason advanced except that— — MR. ROSENTHAL: Isn’t this just as common to the rest of the state as it is to Chicago, and do not we have legislation on that affecting the whole state? MR. B. A. ECKHART: I am in- clined to think that the state legisla- December 15 357 1906 ture will act upon that matter in the near future. I think the members of the legislature will act upon that sub- ject in the near future, but I think we ought to have self -protection to guard against the City of Chicago and its offi- cers accepting these acts of gratuitous service. I think it is wholesome, I think it is in the line of public sen- timent upon this matter, and I trust the substitute will not pass. MR. G. W. DIXON - : Mr. Chairman, in view of what has been said I move to lay the substitute upon the table. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Robins has the floor. MR. ROBINS: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me there is confusion in this matter between a pass and the contract right for free service for certain officers of the city. In my judgment the char- ter should contain the provision as sub- mitted by Mr. Eckhart with the excep- tion that the second paragraph read- ing as follows: (Reading second para- graph), should be stricken out before it is passed. Then whatever arrange- ments the City Council chooses to make in regard to special contracts passed by the City Council with any public service corporation will be within the power and discretion of the City Coun- cil and I believe would be wisely at- tended to. If the particular prohibition against a pass which is only given to some officer in authority for supposed advantage of course to the corporation, and the actual service rendered be sep- arated in the discussion, I believe we will take the right action. MR. EIDMANN: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Eidmann. MR. EIDMANN: Probably outside of the police department there are no other servants that require a greater amount of transportation than do the in- spectors of the various departments of the city government. Outside of the po- lice department and the fire depart- ment and the city inspectors of the city government who for some time past have had their transportation paid by the city, I do not think any one should ride free in the way of public transportation. We know what public sentiment is at the present time about the public officer using free transporta- tion, even on the railroads or on the public transportation lines of the City of Chicago. I think that the resolution offered by Mr. Eckhart covers the point. I do not think there is any question about it if it is properly drawn up in the form of a charter so that it cannot be misunderstood what is meant by it, and I personally hope that the resolu- tion offered by Mr. Eckhart will pre- vail. It ought to prevail. MR. WERNO: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Alderman Werno. MR. WERNO: I am in favor of Mr. Eckhart ’s resolution with the exception of the provision to include the firemen. THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot hear anything you say, Mr. Werno. MR. WERNO: I say I am in favor of Mr. Eckhart ’s resolution with the exception of the firemen being added. I understand that provision has been made for them, and if that is the way the resolution now reads I think it ought to be adopted. The ordinance that the local transpor- tation committee of the City Council adopted practically settled that. We have a provision of that kind in the or- dinance which allows and permits po- licemen and firemen in uniform to ride free. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any fur- ther discussion upon this question? Then the question is upon Mr. Dixon’s motion to lay Mr. Rosenthal ’s substi- tute upon the table. As many as favor that signify by saying aye; opposed, no. The motion to lay on the table is car- ried. The question is now upon the adoption of Mr. Eckhart ’s resolution as amended. MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman. December 15 358 1906 THE CHAIRMAN: Senator Jones. MR. JONES: I should like to move a substitute for Mr. Eekhart’s resolu- tion; that is that the resolution be as drafted by Mr. Eckhart, but omitting the second paragraph which reads, “That this provision shall not extend to the furnishing of free transportation to the police and fire departments, ’ ’ something of that kind. I believe that we should cut out all exceptions. THE CHAIRMAN: You move to strike out the provision exempting the members of the police and fire depart- ments? MR. JONES: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a sec- ond to that motion? MR. MacMILLAN: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacMillan. MR. MacMILLAN : I hope that Sen- ator Jones’ amendment will not be car- ried. I believe that if there are any two classes of our servants who should have free transportation on our city railway systems those two are the police and fire department members. Gentle- men who have observed the movements of our population at the crowded times of the day must have been struck by the fact that wherever great crowds have gathered, where peace at times was in jeopardy, the presence of a police officer or a member of the fire department in uniform always conduced to the public peace. It is quite differ- ent from an officer who is not a uni- formed officer, whether he be a mu- nicipal court bailiff or inspector or any one holding a municipal position. The fact that a member of the police de- partment or a member of the fire de- partment, a public servant is uniformed is in itself a guaranty. But more than that, it seems to me that all our public servants in the City of Chicago, of whom there are probably many thousands, receive a small enough return for the services which they render. Their callings are the most perilous callings of the en- tire city department, I suppose in all of the city departments, and we should make it an object to secure the very best men possible for those places. We should make it an object in any and all conditions and circumstances to sur- round them with the expressions of our support that are possible, and it seems to me that to strike out these two would be going back upon the record. I do not believe that a police officer or a member of the fire department will be one whit less capable, willing and ready to perform the duty incum- bent upon him if he were to ride free. He does not have to have a pass in his pocket; his uniform is his pass, "his star is his pass, and I hope the amend- ment offered by Senator Jones will not be adopted. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon MR. HUNTER: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hunter. MR. HUNTER: I have no knowl- edge of what the gentleman is speaking about except in a general manner. I have just come in. Unfortunately my official position kept me from coming in until now, but I have today, as a repre- sentative of this city, made a requisi- tion for transportation for certain men. In my office men are paid $1,500 per year. They have to give a bond of $50 a year. They have to pay any street car fare under the law that the law prescribes, and that law does not limit them to anything. I have asked today one hundred tick- ets from the comptroller, and he has sent them to my office, recognizing the justice of the request. I have them in my possession, but I will not issue them until I am satisfied that the men who are going to get them are entitled to them. I have men working for me in my office until 12 o’clock at night. I have today assigned ten men who will labor December 15 359 1906 until all trains leave Chicago. Must these men go home — must they not go home until the time transpires until all of these trains shall go? Shall these men have the right to communicate with their families or shall they not? These men go home and they come back. They are employes of this city and so far as my record goes I am an employe of the state. All I want to know is this: Whether or not they shall wear uniforms, be- cause my men have no uniforms. My men cannot wear uniforms until the law prescribes that they shall, and also until it shall be prescribed where they shall get their uniforms. I wish to say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the gentle- man who has just spoken, if I catch it right, that I want to protect the men who are working for me and keep them harmless. They shall not take one cent. It has been prescribed by the law in the past that men shall take fifty cents from a man that is sent to the Bridewell. My men cannot under the present law take that money. A reputable lawyer told me l^p would give me $25 for my man today if he would stay until 12 o’clock tonight to serve a paper on a man, and my man served that paper, but he cannot take one dollar. Therefore, Mr. Chairman and Mr. President, I wish to say to you that this matter about which you now speak and which is before you now should be de- liberated longer than a second or an hour. I wish to protect my men. I am responsible for them and I want them to be just as clean as any man that speaks here. MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. .Tones. MR. JONES: I should like to speak to my motion. I think the remarks of Mr. Hunter demonstrate that it will be a mistake if we pass Mr. Eckhart’s resolution without striking out the ex- ceptions as to police officers and firemen. I can see no reason why the deputy bailiffs and certain inspectors, and per- haps other city employes should not have the same privileges as the police- men and firemen. I believe that if the City of Chicago wishes to provide trans- portation for the deputy bailiffs — and I can see no reason why they should not — that they should provide that trans- portation by either paying the fares or making a contract with the street rail- road companies for those particular em- ployes. If it is desirable that the policemen should at any time have a right to ride upon the street cars then that can be provided for by a special ordinance or a suitable contract, but it seems to me that the matter which we should put into the charter is a broad declara- tion against anybody accepting any gratuitous service which can be accord- ing to law construed in the nature of a bribe. And, I do not believe that we should put upon our statute books or into our charter that policemen and firemen may be permitted to accept these gratuitous services which we are preventing anybody else from accept- ing. I believe that this particular ex- ception should be stricken out of the motion which is before the house. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal. Under the rules of the Convention Mr. Hunter. MR. HUNTER: I do not want to speak upon the motion, I want to make a suggestion. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, the Chair has already recognized Mr. Rosenthal. MR. HUNTER: Very well. MR, ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, it seems curious to me to have the gen- tleman speaking about the city making a contract with corporations which prac- tically shall be in violation of the fundamental law of the city. Now, if our charter provides that no gratuities December 15 360 1906 shall be accepted and no gratuities shall be given and no pass taken and no free transportation had ? the city is power- less to make any contract with any cor- poration regarding that very thing which is forbidden to be done by the charter. So if we are going to have any law, let us have all the exceptions properly in there. That is the very rea- son why I thought it was inadvisable and inexpedient to pass such a law. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bennett. MR, BENNETT: I just wanted to ask Mr. Rosenthal a question, if he con- sidered a gratuity a contract entered in- to between the city and a corporation. MR. ROSENTHAL: If our charter provides, and we will assume that this resolution is passed, that no city officer shall accept any pass or gratuitous ser- vice, then we cannot provide by any contract that a railroad company shall give him that which is forbidden by our charter. I think that is a very plain legal proposition. MR. COLE: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cole. MR. COLE : I believe in the city collecting every cent that is due it from any corporation or any individual property owner of the city, and I be- lieve in the city insisting upon every cent due it, and I believe in the city paying all its bills for its employes, and I am in favor of Senator Jones’ amendment. MR. CHURCH: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Church. MR. CHURCH: I believe it would be a great mistake to adopt Senator Jones’ amendment if that excluded po- licemen. Now, in some of the outly- ing portions of this city the patrolmen are required to cover a great deal of ground. I know in the extreme south- ern portions of the city the districts they have to patrol sometimes includes three or four settlements, although in- side of the city limits. I believe the system should be left as it is. It is a fact that we have in those portions of the city inadequate police protection at the present time, and everything that can be done to facilitate the police in getting over their district ought to be retained in the charter, and it would be a great mistake to adopt that resolu- tion. MR. COLE: I desire to ask the gen- tleman a question: I would ask if you think patrolmen can take proper care of their districts inside of a street car. MR. CHURCH: I want to say in re- ply to that that in the district where I live in the City of Chicago, I speak with that in mind, the patrolmen cover a territory there that consists of five or six settlements, centers of population, that are remote. There is a great ex- panse of territory that is not settled up at all between these different settle- ments and they have to go between these settlements on trains or street cars. It is necessary for them to do that, MR, SHEDD: Mr. Chairman, I move you tha^ we lay the motion on the table. MR. CAREY: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Carey. MR, CAREY: I just want to say a word in connection with the good of the service, both of the firemen and the po- lice department. The firemen and po- licemen of this city are always on duty, or supposed to be. We have a large fire and part of the firemen are off duty, and I do not believe they would feel it their duty if they had to pay their fare while off duty to practically take it upon themselves to go to that fire in some district on a general call. We all know what this city has gone through in riots, where policemen were rushed from one part of this town to the other in the last few years, many of them being off duty, perhaps. It would look to me as though it would be a hardship on these policemen to jump on a car and have to pay car fare for December 15 361 1906 the purpose of doing their duty in some other part of town- I believe it would be to the welfare of this city, for the good of the police and fire departments that they should be excepted. I believe that Mr. Eck- hart in his resolution covers everything that ought to go into this charter. I believe so far as the bailiffs are con- cerned, that Mr. O’Donnell has reached the bottom on that point. There are men, though, they are un- der Mr. Hunter — and I know Mr. Hun- ter is an honest man — that might be reached in the serving of papers and things of that kind. For instance, if a bailiff went to serve a paper on the street car company’s employe, that he could not very well get away from, the pass might have something to do with that, it might get him away from his duty, for little favors extended. But the police and the fire, there is no chance to reach them, or anything of that kind. I believe Mr. Eckhart’s resolution should pass. MR. GANSBERGEN: It seems to me if you abolish the exception % made by Mr. Eekhart that instead of avoiding an evil you create one. For instance, if an officer is to pay his fare while on duty, or while going from place to place, it would be necessary for him to have some kind of transportation; he will have to be furnished with tickets purchased from the street car company in order that he may ride, and those tickets will have to be distributed to the officers. That is the only way I can see it. Those matters have been con- sidered in the franchise matters now be- ing discussed by the city with the trans- portation companies. I understand that in the franchises about to be closed be- tween the street car companies and the city those matters have been taken in- to consideration. It seems to me there would not be any incentive, for instance, for an offi- cer riding on a street car in his uni- form while off duty, to save five cents. I believe that instead of benefitting matters it would be a detriment, that in- stead of creating an honest force you would be forcing dishonesty upon them in these matters. MR. PENDARVIS: I wish to speak to the motion offered by Senator Jones, and in its favor, and on the assumption that it should be carried, that the pre- ceding paragraph shall be amended by inserting after the word “ another” these words, “except as the same may be provided by the city.” That is in the fourth line. That is the only way the city could act, I presume, by ordi- nance. This resolution now, Mr. Chairman, as it stands, is intended to prohibit the solicitation or receipt of transportation by any officer from a company, as an individual; it is not as I take it, in- tended to restrict or limit the city in any way whatever providing for the transportation of its servants. It says, the words “free pass or gratuity,” and if the city should elect by contract or otherwise, or by ordinance to provide for the transportation of its officers, that becomes a part of the considera- tion of the contract, and is not free, is not a gratuity. It seems to me by striking out the second paragraph of Senator Jones’ motion, and then by in- serting the words “except as the same may be provided by the city by ordi- nance, or otherwise,” we will have fully covered the situation. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon Mr. Shedd’s motion, that Sena- tor Jones’ motion to strike out, lie on the table; the Chair will suggest that some of these matters be put, so that we can get this question decided. MR. JONES: In order to reduce the number of motions I will accept the suggestions of Mr. Pendarvis. THE CHAIRMAN: That can be done after the motion to lie on the table has been put. Gentlemen, you have December 15 362 1906 beard the motion of Mr. Shedd; as many as favor the motion to lie on the table — I will state Senator Jones ’ mo- tion — he moves to strike out from the Eckhart resolution the section exempt- ing policemen and firemen, and Mr. Shedd moves to lay it upon the table. Now, upon Mr. Shedd ’s motion to lay upon the table, the vote will be taken. All those in favor of Mr. Shedd ’s mo- tion will signify so by saying aye; those opposed, no. The motion is car- ried. Now, the question is upon Mr. Eckhart ’s motion as amended. As many as favor that will signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. The motion prevailed. THE CHAIRMAN: The section is adopted as amended. The Secretary will read No. 17. MR. SNOW : Before proceeding with that, I gave notice last night that I should offer today amendments to the Public Utilities section that was passed last night. I desire to do that now, and move that it be taken up at a later date. THE CHAIRMAN: The communica- tion will be read and printed. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Snow: “ Amend proposition 1, section 16, Pub- lic Utilities, by striking out all after the word ‘city' in line 11, and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ‘Also to docks and wharves. ’ ” MR. O’DONNELL: Where is that, where are you reading? THE SECRETARY: Amend proposi- tion 1, section 16, Public Utilities. That is found on page 345; proposition 1, scetion 16; the first proposition in- volved, right hand column on page 345. THE SECRETARY : Also on page 345, right hand column, Section 16, Pub- lic Utilities. Mr. Snow moved to amend the first proposition by striking out after the word “city”, in line eleven, and by inserting in lieu thereof the following: “also docks and wharves.” There is another, also by Mr. Snow, page 345, right hand column, under No. 16, Public Utilities, Section 1, Public Utilities, by adding the following: THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Snow: Amend proposition 1, Section 16, Public Utilities, by adding the following: Pro- vided, that the city shall keep separate accounts for each public utility, and that the income from each service shall be used solely for the benefit of that utility exactly as though it were an independent business enterprise; and whenever the in- come from any utility shall exceed the reasonable needs of that service, in- cluding all proper and reasonable sink- ing funds, the price of or charge for the service rendered or commodity fur- nished by such utility shall be lowered, to the end that the patrons of such utility shall directly secure the greatest benefit of the city’s ownership thereof; and no such utility shall be so oper- ated as to render its charge for service an indirect form of taxation. THE CHAIRMAN: The communica- tions will be printed and taken up at some subsequent meeting. The Secretary will read No. 17, Parks, Boulevards and Public Grounds. The Secretary read Section 17 as it appears in the proceedings at page 55. MR. LATHROP: I desire to move, sir, the adoption of the second alterna- tive to 1. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lathrop moves the adoption of the second alter- native to No. 1. MR. COLE : I move to amend by adopting the first alternative to No. 1. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cole moves as a substitute that the first alternative to No. 1 shall be adopted. The matter is before the house for discussion. Mr. Jones has the floor. MR. LATHROP: May I be allowed to say a word, Mr. Chairman? What I will say will cover both alternatives. There is no one thing in which the people of Chicago feel a keener interest than in the parks. No bigger misfor- tune could come to the parks than to December 15 363 1906 have them come under the influence of politics. There are some people who say that the consolidation of the park systems as a department of the City Gov- ernment, whether desirable or not, is in- evitable. The plan first suggested to keep the parks beyond the influence of politics was to have the commissioners appoint- ed by the judges of the Appellate Court. The objections to this plan are so seri- o.us that I believe it ought not to be adopted, and I hope it eventually will not be adopted. Our former lawyers and the judges themselves think it a misfortune to impose political patronage on judges who are themselves elective, holding that it is of the first importance to preserve the integrity and independ- ence of the judiciary, and to protect them from outside influences. For many years past the Justices of the Peace have been virtually appointed by the judges and the result hardly jus- tifies much enthusiasm over the extension of the system to include the appoint- ment of park commissioners to repre- sent the whole city. It may be argued that the south parks have been well managed and that those commissioners have been appointed by judges, but the excellent results in the South Park Sys- tem have been primarily due to the con- tinuity of the management under which the present able superintendent has been kept there more than thirty years. Judges have not always shown good judgment or independence in such ap- pointments. Some of the appointments have been due, it has been popularly believed, to the result of political pres- sure, and the boards so appointed have not entirely escaped scandals. Mr. Chairman, I venture to question the fit- ness of judges to select such a park board. Park commissioners should have spe- cial qualifications. The first and most important qualification is a clear con- ception of the main objects and pur- poses of the parks, and as much expe- rience as possible in the various kinds of work involved in the making and maintenance of parks. Combine with this good business and organizing abilities and you have an ideal park commis- sioner. Our judges are very busy men, and have no time to investigate and to fa- miliarize themselves with the work and the needs of the parks, and to consult with leading citizens as to the qualifi- cations of the appointees. This matter lies outside of their regular duties, and apart from their previous training. There are two other methods of ap- pointment, by the governor and by the mayor. Under the consolidation all ap- propriations for the maintenance and im- provement of the parks and parkways will come from the City Council, and the city will thus exercise all needful control over the commissioners. Experi- ence and observation show that the mayor of the city is inevitably influenced more or less in his appointments by local political considerations. I believe that, on reflection, we shall agree that if it is given to the mayor to appoint the park commissioners, with the large num- ber of employes whom they will con- trol, it will be merely a question of time when the parks will be ruled by the spoilsmen. The remaining method of appointment is by the governor of the state. The objection which will naturally be raised to this is the bad appointments made by some of the recent governors, prior to Governor Deneen. These have been the exception of the rule. For thirty- seven years the commissioners of Lincoln Park have been appointed by the gover- nor of the state. For more than — for about twenty-five years the governor ap- pointed representative citizens of the highest character and ability, and during all that time, a quarter of a century, no governor ever attempted to dictate a single appointment of an employe in December 15 364 1906 Lincoln Park. Which, I want to say, cannot be said of any other department of the city. Then came the period of the Goths and Vandals, when the parks were given over to the tender mercies of the spoiler. It is not probable that this will ever occur again. No governor of that period was ever re-elected governor, or was ever afterwards elected to any high office of the state. Under the present governor the best interests of the parks have been the sole consideration in their man- agement. With the parks under th,e civil service system, which has been de- cided upon here, with my full and hearty approval — under the civil service laws, future governors may be confidently ex- pected to adhere to the old custom of choosing the best men to be had for park commissioners. If we compare the average results during the past thirty-seven years in the various city departments under heads appointed by the mayor, such as water, police, school, buildings, streets, and so forth, with those in the parks under men chosen by the governor, I think that, considering all the conditions, and the very serious objections to the other methods of appointment, we may safely decide to recommend the appoint- ment of park commissioners by the gov- ernor of the state. As the future com- missioners will have to depend upon the City Council for appropriations for all their expenditures, and the Council and the mayor will be able adequately to safeguard the city’fs interests in the management of the parks. I move you, sir, that this second al- ternative to Section 1 be adopted. MB. COLE: I want to get a straight vote as between appointment by the gov- ernor and the mayor. I am in favor of appointment by the mayor, but I think it will bring it up under a direct vote if I withdraw my motion, which I ask leave to do. THE CHAIBMAN: Mr. Cole asks the Convention’s consent to withdraw his mo- tion, and in the absence of objection it will be allowed. MB. MacMILLAN : I venture to ask a question, whether, if either the first or the second alternative be adopted, what provision will be made as to the term of office of these park commis- sioners? The alternative does not set forth any provision as to the term of office. THE CHAIBMAN: No. 1 provides that. MB. MacMILLAN : No. 1 provides it, No. 1. THE CHAIBMAN: This is simply a question of the manner of appoint- ment of the commissioners. MB. MacMILLAN : That answers the question. MB. YOPICKA: What is the ques- tion? THE CHAIBMAN: The question is upon the adoption of the second alter- native to No. 1. The second alternative to No. 1, page 56: “Park commis- sioners shall be appointed by the gov- ernor of the state.” MB. YOPICKA: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I hope this motion will not prevail. We are preparing a charter for the City of Chicago, and we want to give the city all the powers we can, as I have said before; and here you can give more power to the council than the mayor, and you should do so. I think the appointment by the governor of the park commissioners should be taken from him. I believe, gentlemen, that every one of you present here in this hall is in favor of giving all the powers that possibly can be given to the City Council and to the mayor, and any appointment that should be made, should be made by the mayor, as the rightly appointing power of the park commis- sioners. Both the mayor and the gov- ernor are under the influence of cer- tain parties, they are both politicians. They are interested, both of them, either December 15 365 1906 in the democratic or the republican par- ty, but it seems to me they will both try to select the very best men for the office of park commissioners. They al- ways did, and they always will do so in the future. We have had experience that the judges have made very good appointments for the South Park Board for years, but, at the same time, we do not want the judiciary connected with politics. We do not wish them to meddle with polities, but we want them to look after the affairs of the City of Chicago. However, I think we should give the pow- er to the mayor, and I hope ultimately that will prevail. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I say that in no discourtesy to the governor. We know he will appoint wisely, and he has always appointed the very best people he can possibly select out of the citizens of the City of Chicago. At the same time, I think we must hold the mayor and the council responsible in this matter. I am sure that any ap- pointees by the mayor will be as good and as capable as anybody else. The mayor appoints the members of the School Board, who have in their hands the spending of ten to twelve millions every year, and he should be good enough to appoint the park commissioners, who do not spend so much money as the School Board. I believe the mayor should have the right to appoint the park commissioners. MR. SNOW : I simply desire to call the attention of the Convention to this fact: that we have already included the parks as a department of the city gov- ernment ; and the City Council will now have the appropriation of money, and the care of money for the maintenance and care of the parks. It certainly seems to me to be a particularly odd proposition that the head of the parks should be appointed by some other au- thority. That would result, I think, in a conflict of authority in which there would be no direct responsibility. There would be divided authority. The mayor is at present the city governor, and certainly there should be no division of authority. MR. GANSkERGEN: Mr. Chairman, as to the matter of divided authority, let me say that in a large number of instances in the large cities of the United States there is that same divided au- thority. The police commissioners in New York City are appointed by the state. Now, it seems to me that the mayor of the City of Chicago has suf- ficient authority just now without put- ting the parks under his jurisdiction. My idea of a Park Commission is that they should be appointed by the Appel- late Court judges, and it was based upon the fact that I thought it removed fur- ther than by any other method, the park system from politics, and my report so states — I was acting as chairman during the absence of Mr. Lathrop. But if there was a chance of the mayor having this authority, I should rather vote for the governor. I might be allowed to explain the reason of this committee — with the exception of Mr. Yopicka, who put in his argument on the other side — I might explain why the committee were in favor of the Appellate Court judges. That opinion was based on the fact that the Appellate Court judges are under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; they are selected from the Superior Court and the Circuit Court. Now, it seems to me that they have not been corrupted in the past in any form by the appoint- ment of the commissioners to the South Park Board. If there has been any cor- ruption I have not seen it, or heard of it even. I think the Park Board has been free from criticism. But I feel that if we are going to vote on this question as between the governor and the mayor, that I shall certainly favor the governor having the appointments to the office. MR. CRILLY : In the Committee on Parks, in this matter of appointment, December 15 366 1906 I was in favor of the mayor. I have not seen anything since to change my mind in this matter. In fact, I see more reason why it should be so. I feel that we in this Convention have voted to elect the mayor for four years and that he will be ineligible for re- election. THE CHAIRMAN: There is no lim- itation as to his eligibility. MR. CRILLY : The mayor is to be elected for four years? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MR. CRILLY : And to be eligible for re-election ? THE CHAIRMAN : So I understand. MR. CRILLY: I didn’t understand that. In my opinion the governor is elected to his office from some remote part of the state, and he does not know as much about who should be appoint- ed to the f*ark Commission as the mayor does, right here in our city. I think that the mayor of the City of Chicago would know more about what kind of a man should be appointed to the com- mission than the governor, who does not live here in the city. Therefore, 1 am decidedly in favor of the mayor making these appointments. MR. LINEHAN : I do not think that we should lay so much stress on the mayor. This says: “With the consent of two-thirds of the City Council.” To my mind, that looks as though the coun- cil appoints them. Following up the argument as advanced by Alderman Snow, thait the Council is going to provide the revenue, the city provides the revenue for them. I think it is only right and proper that the council should appoint. Now, we know that the mayor, while he may have the right of appointment, is not going to be so foolish as to come to this Council and propose' names for park commissioners without first con- sulting the members of the council be- forehand; and then it will take two- thirds of the members of the Council to confer that appointment. So it is clearly an appointment by the mayor and by the council; or by the executive and legislative departments of the City of Chicago, who are paying for the main- tenance of the parks according to the new provisions of this charter. I do not think that the members here should lay so much stress on the question as to whether the governor or mayor shall appoint, because it is clearly an appoint- ment by the City Council — the executive and the legislative departments. MR. R AYMER : Mr. Chairman, the talk has been quite prevalent in this Convention that we are making a charter for Chicago ; and we are trying to give to Chicago the greatest measure of home rule that we can. The taxes for the maintenance of these parks are all col- lected within the limits of the City of Chicago. We vest in the mayor the authority to appoint our Library Board, our School Board, and various other of- ficials. We should be just as consistent, it would seem to me, to vest in the governor the power to^ appoint the mem- bers of the School Board and the Li- brary Board. I think it is a mistake to assume that the mayor of Chicago would not be capable of appointing park commis- sioners that would discharge the du- ties of that office equally as good as the appointments made by any other man. If we are going to give home rule to Chicago, let us do it in its fullest meas- ure. I do not believe that it would be consistent with this body to vest with the governor the appointment of com- missioners for the Chicago parks. MR. MERRIAM: I agree with Al- derman Rayrper, and with what Aider- man Raymer has said, and with what Alderman Snow has said. Certainly, af- ter voting in favor of home rule charter we are making ourselves ridiculous by voting one by which this distinctly local matter of appointing park commissioners would be given to the governor of the state. It would make a feasible argu- December 15 367 1906 ment that the governor should appoint judges of the Municipal Court, because in a certain sense they are state officials; or he should appoint the police, be- cause the police are agents of the state. Or we could make out some kind of an argument that the governor should ap- point the members of the Board of Ed- ucation, because their duties are in a sense pertinent to the state. But if any- thing is recognized as exclusively a mu- nicipal function, it is certainly the care of the parks. We do not have to vote on this question as to whether the mayor shall appoint these members of the Park Board or whether it should be done by the judges. The sole question to be settled here is whether we can have the judges of the court appoint — whether we should have the mayor, as the head of the local authority, appoint the park com- missioners, or whether they should be ap- pointed by the head of the state, and as between the local authority and the state authority I do not see how' there can possibly be any choice. The parks, the care of the parks, the maintenance of the parks by taxation, is distinctly and decisively a municipal function, wffiich can not under any circumstances be placed under the control of an authority outside of. the city. MR. LATHROP: I want to say one word. THE CHAIRMAN: With the Conven- tion ’s consent. MR. LATHROP: The parks are at present — the Lincoln Park and the West Parks are state institutions. The gov- ernor has now the right to make those appointments, and I do not know that it is so very absurd that the consent of the legislature should be asked to leave it there. The governor now has the right to make the appointments and at present the park systems are not within the jurisdiction of this municipality at all. MR. MERR1AM: I did not mean to say that this is an absurd proposi- tion. I meant to say that if we adopt this proposition w'e place ourselves in an inconsistent position. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon the adoption of the second alterna- tive to No. 1, which provides in effect that the park commissioners shall be ap- pointed by the governor. MR. HUNTER: The motion is upon the appointing by the governor? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Upon that the Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Beebe, Brown, Church, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eidmann, Gans- bergen, Hill, Hunter, Kittleman, Lathrop, Lundberg, MacMillan, O ’Donnell, Pen- darvis, Rinaker, Shanahan, Shedd — 18. Nays — Bennett, Brosseau, Burke, Ca- rey, Cole, Crilly, Dever, Guerin, Jones, Linehan, McCormick, McGoorty, McKin- ley, Merriam, Ow^ens, Raymer, Robins, Ro- senthal, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Sunny, Taylor, Yopicka, Werno, Young, Zimmer —27. THE CHAIRMAN : Upon the motion of Mr. Lathrop that alternative to No. 2, providing for the appointment of park commissioners by the governor, the vote is yeas, 18; nays, 27. The motion is lost. The Secretary will read alternative to No. 1. MR. ROSENTHAL : Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN : For what purpose does Mr. Rosenthal arise? MR. ROSENTHAL: To propose an amendment to alternative to No. 1. THE SECRETARY: At page 55, low r er right hand column. THE CHAIRMAN: Wait; Mr. Rosen- thal has an amendment, which the Sec- retary will read. THE SECRETARY: “By Mr. Rosen- thal : With the consent of a majority of the members of the City Council, as provided in the case of heads of depart- ments. ’ ’ A VOICE: I move that that be laid on the table. THE CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and seconded that Mr. Rosen- December 15 368 1906 thal’s amendment be laid on the table. Are you ready for the question? As many as favor that, signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. The motion prevailed. MR, SHEPARD : Question. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon the adoption of alternative to No. 1. MR, RAYMER: I move its adoption. THE CHAIRMAN : As many as fa- vor that signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. The motion to adopt is carried. THE CHAIRMAN: There now re- mains No. 1, from which has been elim- inated the appointment by the Appellate Court, and wherein still remains the num- ber of park commissioners and their terms. MR. JONES: I should like the record to show that I voted in opposition to alternative No. 1. I am in favor of the appointment by the judges. I would like the record to show that. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the record so show. MR. LATHROP: I wish to submit an amendment as a substitute for No. 1. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read Mr. Lathrop ’s substitute for No. 1. MR. HUNTER: On what page is No. 1, Mr. Chairman? THE SECRETARY: Page 55, lower right hand column. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. La- throp : Substitute for Section 1, of XVII. 1. The management of the mu- nicipal parks and parkways and small parks, and of any forest preserve or outer belt park system, shall be vested in a Board of Park Commissioners con- sisting of nine members, who shall be appointed by the mayor of the City of Chicago; three from the West Side, three from the South Side and three from the North Side; three for a term of two years, three for a term of four years and three for a term of six years, their successors to be appointed for a term of six years. Any vacancy which may occur shall be filled by appointment of the mayor, for the unexpired term. MR. LATHROP: Strike out “ alter- natives’ ’ 1 and 2; section 1 of No. 17, it should be. THE SECRETARY: Do you want this second one, too, Mr. Lathrop? MR. LATHROP: No, I must have given you another paper by mistake. That is all. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard Mr. Lathrop ’s substitute for No. 1. What will you do? MR. SHANAHAN: Question. MR. CHURCH: There is one question that comes to my mind here, and it is the same question that was raised in the committee on municipal parks when this matter was discussed there, and that is as to the indefiniteness of the terms “West Side, South Side, North Side . ” I think something ought to be put in there describing just what is meant. It is intended apparently to divide the city into three districts, so that each district would be represented by these appoint- ments. I think those terms are very in- definite. THE CHAIRMAN: I think the draft- ing committee will understand what is meant by North Side and West and South Side, the three principal divisions of the city. THE CHAIRMAN: Any further dis- cussion upon this question? MR. McGOORTY : I would like to have the Secretary read the resolution again. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read Mr. Lathrop ’s substitute once more. The Secretary read the resolution as hereinbefore printed. MR. YOUNG: I think that is a fair indication probably that vacancies shall be filled by the mayor, with the ap- proval of two-thirds of the council, but in order to leave no doubt in the minds December 15 369 1906 of any one I would like to substitute these words there. THE CHAIRMAN: I think that is covered by the section just adopted. MR, LATHROP: I accept that amendment. MR. YOUNG: I think it is covered, but I want it to be clear. MR. SHEPARD: Just to strike out the word “ mayor’ ’ there; the appoint- ment is otherwise provided for. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not quite understand what you said, Mr. Shepard. MR. SHEPARD : If you simply strike out the words “the mayor, ” in view of the fact that the appointment is pro- vided for elsewhere; it is elsewhere pro- vided for, and that would make it clear of any ambiguity. MR. BEEBE: I judged from the reading that it contemplated the ap- pointment of two Park Boards. THE CHAIRMAN: No, it contem- plates the appointment of one Park Board with nine members, three of whom shall come from each one of the divisions of the city. Are you ready for the ques- tion? THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon the adoption of Mr. Lathrop ’s sub- stitute. As many as favor that signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. It is carried. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read No. 2. MR. SHEPARD: No. 2 simply pro- vides for the levy and collection of taxes. That is covered in the chapter on revenue, and I suggest that it be deferred and taken up under the subject of revenue. MR. EIDMANN : Have you disposed of the park appointments? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. EIDMANN: I desire to offer an amendment to that. THE CHAIRMAN : The Chair is very sorry, but the motion has been made and almost unanimously carried, almost un- animously adopted, adopting Mr. Lath- rop ’s substitute. MR. EIDMANN : I did not know but what it would be subject to amendment after being passed. MR. BURKE : I desire to second Mr. Shepard’s motion, that that be deferred until — be referred to the Revenue Com- mittee, or be deferred until we take up the subject of revenue. THE CHAIRMAN : I understand your motion to be that the question of No. 2 relating to taxes be deferred until the revenue question is taken up ; is that your motion? MR, SHEPARD: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no ob- jection, it will take that course. MR. EIDMANN: I want to offer a separate resolution. THE CHAIRMAN : Unless the matter is reopened by consent for reconsidera- tion, it cannot be done. MR, EIDMANN : I move the reconsid- eration of it. THE CHAIRMAN: How did the gen- tleman vote? MR. EIDMANN : I did not vote at all. MR. McCORMICK: I move a recon- sideration of it. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a second to that motion? THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. McCormick moves that the matter just disposed of be reconsidered. MR. RAYMER: I would like to ask the purpose of this reconsideration. MR. EIDMANN: I will state it. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary read the purpose. THE SECRETARY: “By Mr. Eid- mann: No appointment, however, shall be acted on until after a subsequent meeting of the City Council. ’ ’ MR. EIDMANN : This resolution is offered to THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon the reconsideration of the vote. MR. McCORMICK: I would like to speak on the question of the reconsider- December 15 370 1906 ation of the motion; I made the motion and I believe I have a right to speak upon it. THE CHAIRMAN: What does the house want to do about it? MR. McCORMICK : That is an amend- ment that was prepared to be sent in, and the Chair was not looking the right way; I move a reconsideration of this matter now. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, if the un- animous consent of the house is ob- tained, all right. Mr. Eidmann has the floor for the purpose of debating his ■fnotion. MR. EIDMANN : I thought it was a motion with reference to the appoint- ment; if the matter is one of appoint- ment made by the mayor and concurred in by the City Council, I think it should lay over for at least some time so that the City Council may act upon it and know who the appointees are. In the past these appointments have come gen- erally — have been made generally the same evening that the appointments are offered. They usually come when the members of the council have had no notice that the appointment is going to be made and have no information on the men that are to be appointed, and they should be given an opportunity to in- f vestigate the appointees submitted by the mayor. I think that is good reason for reconsideration. MR. RAYMER: With a view of sav- ing time, I ask the unanimous consent of the house for the adoption of this amendment. Cries of “Consent.” THE CHAIRMAN: Well, the Chair suggests that it be presented as a separ- ate resolution to be put in this section. MR. EIDMANN : I move that that be done, that it be offered as a separate resolution. THE CHAIRMAN: As many as fa- vor its adoption signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. The motion prevailed. MR. TAYLOR: ’ I move that the con- sideration of Section 18 be m^de a special order for Thursday evening. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, the special order before that is special order of revenue. MR. TAYLOR: I thought that had been postponed beyond that. It is quite necessary, owing to the wide interests on the subject of education, that a day be named some time in advance, and in the evening, and I don ’t see why we should not at this time name a day for that special order. THE CHAIRMAN: W T ell, Mr. Taylor, will you withdraw that until we see how far we get with our work this afternoon, and then renew your motion, doctor, with the consent of the second? MR. CRILLY: Can I say a word in regard to park matters? THE CHAIRMAN: Upon what mat- ters? MR. CRILLY : Park matters. There is no provision in here as to who shall be the president of this board of nine commissioners, or in what way the com- missioners shall elect their president. THE CHAIRMAN: I assume that would be a matter of detail that would be provided in the full draft of the charter. MR. CRILLY : Another matter that I would like to speak about and call the attention of the Convention to it, and that is this: The civil service, in my opinion, the city civil service should not apply to parks. I think that the Park Commissioners ought to have civil ser- vice of their own. THE CHAIRMAN: That has already been passed upon by this Convention. MR. CRILLY: I would like to call the attention of the Convention to this fact: On the South Side, in the South Park system, we have had as many as 2300 employes . in that park system at a time, paying out as much as a quarter of a million dollars a month. It ap- pears to me there should be civil service December 15 371 1906 applying to the parks alone, because it is a question of seasons and weather, and so forth, that appoints these people, put- ting them on and discharging them. Now, there is another matter that I think should be considered, and that is this, that the president of the Park Board should have a salary. THE CHAIRMAN: Those are mat- ters of detail that are to be taken up when the charter comes to us in its fin- ished condition. MR. CRILLY : In regard to the sal- ary of the president? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, that is a detail. The Secretary will read No. 19. MR. ROSENTHAL: Before we pass to the next subject, I have sent to the desk a substitute for a resolution that has already been passed, and my idea in having that first read is to move a reconsideration, because I think the form in which it has been passed it will get us into difficulty at some subsequent time. THE CHAIRMAN : It is a substitute for what? MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Eckhart ’s resolution. I want to say that I have submitted it to a number of gentlemen who agree on it. THE CHAIRMAN: Will the Secre- tary read the substitute? THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Rosen- thal: No city officer or employe shall di- rectly or indirectly ask for, demand or accept for his own use, or for the use of another, any free pass, frank, gratu- ity, gratuitous service, or discrimination from any person or corporation holding or using any franchise, privilege, or li- cense granted by the city, or from any agent or representative of any such per- son or corporation; provided, that noth- ing herein contained shall prevent the City of Chicago from providing by or- dinance for the free transportation of any city officer or employe while in the performance of his official duties. The charter shall contain appropriate pro- visions for the enforcement of this pro- hibition. THE CHAIRMAN: As a substitute, Mr. Rosenthal offers this and gives no- tice that he will ask a reconsideration of the vote by which the original was passed in order to substitute this for it. MR, ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, may we have that vote now? Mr. Chair- man, can we have that vote now while it is fresh in our minds. THE CHAIRMAN : What is your question? MR, ROSENTHAL; Can we have a vote on the reconsideration now? THE CHAIRMAN: That would be the proper motion. Did you vote in the affirmative, Mr. Rosenthal? MR. ROSENTHAL: Yes, sir. THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Rosenthal moves to reconsider the vote by which the resolution offered by Mr. Eckhart, relating to the acceptance of passes, was passed. All those in favor of re- considering the substitute will say aye; opposed, no. The motion to reconsider is lost. MR. ROSENTHAL: I would like a division or roll call on that. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll on the motion to re- consider. Yeas — Beebe, Bennett, Burke, Church, Hunter, Jones, McGoorty, Merriain, O’Donnell, Pendarvis, Rainey, Robins, Rosenthal, Shepard, Snow, Taylor, Vo- picka, Zimmer — 18. Nays — Brown, Carey, Cole, Crilly, De- ver, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eck- hart, J. W., Eidmann, Gansbergen, Gue- rin, Hill, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, Lundberg, MacMillan, McCormick, Mc- Kinley, Owens, Raymer, Shanahan, Shedd, Smulski, Sunny, Werno, Young — 27. (During roll call.) MR. ROBINS: Mr. Chairman, I think there are some of the members of the Convention that do not know just what is before the Convention. I would like to have the substitute read once more. December 15 372 1906 THE CHAIRMAN : Let the Secretary read the substitute once more. The Secretary re-read Mr. Rosenthal’s substitute. THE CHAIRMAN : Are you ready for the question to reconsider? Let the Secretary continue the calling of the roll. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Eckhart. MR. ECKHART: I would like to ask for information. It appears to me that if this substitute now offered is adopted it practically means that the City Council may provide for the grant- ing of a pass to any city officer or em- ploye. It means to neutralize the entire provision as heretofore enacted or adopt- ed, and I believe that the provision we have adopted is a just one and one that ought to go into the charter, and it should not now be mutilated so that it would be meaningless. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. We are in the midst of a roll call and I submit it is not de- batable. THE CHAIRMAN : The Chairman permitted Mr. Eckhart to make an ex- planation because this is a substitute to Ills motion. The Secretary will con- tinue the roll call. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, my name was omitted from the roll call. 1 desire to vote aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bennett votes aye. MR. YOPICKA: Mr. Chairman, I change my vote to aye. MR. HUNTER: Mr. Chairman, 1 change my vote to aye. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Sir? THE CHAIRMAN: For what pur- pose does Mr. Rosenthal rise? MR. ROSENTHAL: Why it is for this purpose, Mr. Chairman: during the roll call you allowed Mr. Eckhart to arise and make an explanation of this substi- tute which I have introduced, which was incorrect, and which may have misin- formed certain members; and I simply ,want to say one word in explanation be- fore the roll call is closed. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Rosenthal’s name was called after Mr. Eckhart ’s and he could have made his explanation on the roll call. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the motion to reconsider, the ayes are 18, the nays are 27, and the motion is lost. The Sec- retary will read Section 19. MR. SHANAHAN: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shanahan: MR. SHANAHAN: Before we pass from Section 17, I would like to call attention to the Convention that in the substitute offered by Mr. Lathrop the word 1 1 municipal parks ’ ’ was used. I think that is a limitation. The parks in Chicago are not municipal parks. We have municipal parks, some three or four small ones, but the three great park systems are not municipal parks. One is a municipality in itself, and the other two are departments of the state, and they will not become mu- nicipal parks until this charter is adopted by the people, and I think we ought to strike out the word 1 1 municipal. ’ ’ MR. LATHROP: No objection. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shanahan moves to strike out the word “ munici- pal, ’ ’ and if there is unanimous consent it will be so dpne. THE SECRETARY: Strike out 1 1 municipal ’ ’ ? THE CHAIRMAN: Strike out “mu- nicipal.” Read Section 19. The Secretary read paragraph 1 of Section XIX as it appears in the pro- ceedings at page 56. MR. YOUNG: I move its adoption, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion. MR. J. W. ECKHART: Mr. Chair- man, I move its adoption by the unani- mous vote of this Convention. MR. SNOW : Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear from somebody that is fa- December 15 373 1906 miliar with the Library Board, whether or not a board of nine is not too large? THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Eekhart can best answer that. ME. J. W. ECKHAET: I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, the Library Board, consisting of nine members, seems to have gotten along nicely for a good many years. We seem to have gotten along without any trouble, and we believe that it is necessary to have quite a number of members in order to have a quorum. ME. TAYLOE: Mr. Chairman, the Library Board was also consulted and are quite in accord with the report of the Committee on Education. MB. YOUNG: I was going to discuss that in the discussion of that section by saying that we look forward to an ex- tension of our li orary system. You will find a section further on giving authority to the city to establish branch libraries. Now, if the library system is to be ex- tended through the establishment of branch systems, it seems to me that now is a suitable time to consider that mat- ter and discuss it. THE CHAIEMAN : The question is on the adoption of No. 1, of Section XIX. As many as are in favor of its adoption will signify so by saying aye; opposed, no. The ayes have it and it is adopted. The Secretary will read para- graph 2. The Secretary read paragraph 2 of Section XIX as it appears on page 56 of the proceedings. MR. BEOSSEAU: Mr. Chairman, in this Section 2 I think the word 1 1 two * ’ should be placed before the word “ years’’ so that three will retire every two years. THE CHAIEMAN : Every two years? ME. BROSSEAU : Yes. It is an er- ror in printing it. THE CHAIRMAN : Are you ready for the question? THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor of the adoption of paragraph two will signify by saying aye; opposed, no. It is adopted. Read No. 3. The Secretary read paragraph 3 of Section XIX as it appears in the pro- ceedings at page 56. MR. G. W. DIXON; I move its adop- tion, Mr. Chairman. MR, HUNTER : Mr. Chairman THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hunter. MR, HUNTER: I desire to have a clause inserted in there : 1 1 Provided they do not now take a police station. 5 ’ THE CHAIRMAN : Is there a second to this amendment? MR. HUNTER: Provided that they do not now change over a police station. I have reference now to the police sta- tion in my ward. They are trying now to take the police station for a public library. I would rather they would not do it. I am not an alderman now, but at the same time I would rather they did not take that police station for a library board or anything else than a station. So, I would just like it provided that they do not do that. I would like a second to that motion. MR. SMULSKI : Question of infor- mation. Was Section 2 passed as it reads in the report? THE CHAIRMAN : It is changed to two years. MR. SMULSKI: Every two years? THE CHAIRMAN : Yes. Are you ready for the question on No. 3? THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor of its adoption will say aye; op- posed, no. It is carried. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Doctor Taylor. MR. TAYLOR: I desire to offer an additional resolution to Section 18 to be printed in the proceedings and sub- sequently discussed, on an educational commission which is provided for in the report of the committee on public edu- cation. THE CHAIRMAN : The communica- tion will be read and printed in the pro- ceedings and taken up December 15 374 1906 THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Taylor: A permanent educational commission of advisory capacity shall be appointed by the mayor with the approval of the council, to consist of seventeen members, who shall serve without compensation, in- cluding the superintendent of the public schools and the librarian of the public library, wffio shall be members ex-officio. Each other member shall hold office until another person is appointed to succeed him. It shall be the function of the educa- tional commission to tender advice and recommendations regarding the public school system of the city, to correlate the educational forces of the city and to prevent unnecessary duplication of ac- tivities by exercising their influence to- ward co-ordinating the various educa- tional and scientific institutions of the city. THE CHAIRMAN: Doctor Taylor, do you want that section to go with Section XVIII or XIX? Section XVIII is the educational section and Section XIX is the public library section. MR. TAYLOR: It pertains quite as much to the public library as it does to the use of the schools, the idea being to bring into co-operation the public library and the public schools, and the museums of the city, as their co-opera- tion is not now possible. THE CHAIRMAN: I would suggest -that inasmuch as we have temporarily deferred Section XVIII, that it be made part of Section XVIII. MR. TAYLOR: Very well. THE CHAIRMAN: To be taken up when Section XVIII is taken up. The Secretary will read Section XX. The Secretary read No. 1 of Section XX, as it appears in the proceedings at pages 56 and 57. MR. COLE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, as chairman of this commit- tee on penal, charitable and reformatory institutions, that we gave this whole matter very thorough consideration. We had a series of meetings in which every- body had a chance to be heard either by writing or otherwise, and the adoption of the report of the committee was un- animous in every way; and I move the adoption of the clause as read. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion that No. 1 as read be adopted. MR. MaeMILLAN : Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Cole a question? THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cole will re- ply to the question. MR. MaeMILLAN : Does that read into the clause authority to maintain free lodging houses? This word “free’’ to be used there, which you use in the next line? MR. COLE: “Authority to maintain lodging houses and free employment bu- reaus in connection therewith. ’ ' I do not understand that it does giv.e author- ity to maintain free lodging houses ; no, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: The city main- tains one now, doesn't it? MR. COLE: In addition to the pres- ent one? MR. ROBINS: It is just to that point paragraph 2, the words “care for" be or delinquent children. ’ ’ that I understood this provision as origi- nally drawn to run. There is no object for maintaing a free employment bureau, no reason that does not equally apply to maintaining free municipal lodging houses. Neither one is of a character to compete or conflict with the paid em- ployment bureaus or the paid lodging houses. They are for that class that in such a city as the City of Chicago are constantly drifting and without any resources whatever, and who would be a charge upon the city and the police sta- tions unless there was some such pro- vision made, properly restricted. MR. COLE: Let me explain a mo- ment. I understand the city has no au- thority now. MR. ROBINS: I understand it has December 15 375 1906 not that authority, but within the power of the city it has been operated and no one has ever questioned it because of its general benefit. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion, gentlemen, that this section be adopted as read. All in favor of its adoption will signify so by saying aye; opposed, no. It is adopted. The Secre- tary will read No. 2. The Secretary read paragraph 2 of Section XX, as it appears in the pro- ceedings at page 57. THE CHAIRMAN: What will you do with this section? MR. McGOORTY: I think that the city should not be limited in regard to this section to the power to contract with the County of Cook. While it probably would be practical and expedient in many instances, I think that the city should have the power to care for the detention, housing and care of indigent persons, prisoners or dependent or delinquent chil- dren, whether it contracts with the County of Cook or not. And, therefore, I suggest, or I move to amend that after the word 1 1 power ’ ’ in the first line of paragraph 2, the words “ care for” be inserted so that the paragraph shall read: 1 1 2. The city shall have power to care for or contract with the County of Cook for the detention, housing and care of indigent persons, prisoners or dependent or delinquent children.” THE CHAIRMAN: Does not that duplicate the section just adopted? MR. McGOORTY: No; it is the section under discussion now. MR. BENNETT: It is the evident purpose of this section to authorize the City of Chicago to contract with the County of Cook for the care of its pris- oners, not of the City of Chicago. It is intended to cover the bridewell. We take the county prisoners in the bride- well and this authorizes us to contract so that we may receive pay from the County of Cook for such services. We have not the full power now. MR. McGOORTY: I desire to say, Mr. Chairman, that I am in hearty sympathy with this section, but I do not understand now that the city has power, for instance, to maintain an orphan asylum or to care for it, and the laws have been strained or liberally construed to enable the council to provide for any such ap- propriation; and it has been suggested, and I am willing to adopt the suggestion, that in lieu of the amendment which I offer that after the word 1 1 Cook ’ ’ or the phrase 1 1 County of Cook 1 ’ the words be inserted, 1 1 or otherwise provided for. ’ ’ I think that is a better form, so as to read as follows: “The city shall have power to con- tract with the County of Cook, or other- wise, to provide for the detention, hous- ing and care of indigent persons, pris- oners or dependent or delinquent chil- dren. ’ ’ THE CHAIRMAN: Would not that somewhat confuse what Mr. Bennett says is the object of this paragraph? MR. McGOORTY: Not at all, Mr. Chairman, because it provides for two affirmative powers or propositions ; one that the city may contract with the county and the other that it may in some other form do what is provided for in this section. THE CHAIRMAN : You have heard Mr. McGoorty’s amendment to this sec- tion, gentlemen. MR. CHURCH : Mr. Chairman : Be- fore this is voted upon I desire to say that the city now has, I believe, some contract or some understanding with the county in regard to the Juvenile Court. The question arose in my mind whether anything should be put in here extend- ing the authority to the city in that re- gard. I understand the city is bearing a portion of the expense. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bennett can answer that question, probably MR. BENNETT: The city appropri- ated this year a portion of the cost of the new building and the land, con- December 15 376 1906 tributed toward the new institution, I do not know in just what way. But we did contribute, and there is some doubt about our authority to do that. There will be no objection to having such a clause inserted. THE CHAIRMAN : What is your amendment, Mr. Church? MR. CHURCH: Well, my amend- ment is, that authority be given to the city to contract with the county with reference to the erection and maintenance of the Juvenile Court Building. THE CHAIRMAN: Eor the opera- tion of the Juvenile Court Building? MR, CHURCH: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN : We will first put Mr. McGoorty’s amendment. Those in favor of Mr. McGoorty ’s amendment will signify so by saying aye; opposed, no. It is carried and so ordered. Mr. Church now proposes an amend- ment that this section shall contain a clause authorizing the City of Chicago to contract with the County of Cook for the erection, maintenance and operation of the Juvenile Court. As many as fa- vor that amendment will signify so by saying aye; opposed, no. It is carried. The question now is upon the entire section as amended. MR. SMULSKI: Mr. Chairman, this point has been already adopted, but I would suggest that the word ‘ ‘ free ’ ’ be inserted before the word “lodging,” so as to give authority to maintain free lodging houses. MR. COLE: I was about to ask for that. At the time I made this motion for its adoption, I supposed the city had this authority, because it was doing it. THE CHAIRMAN: If there are no objections it will be inserted. The question is now upon No. XX as amended. As many as favor its adop- tion will signify by saying aye; opposed, no. It is adopted. The Secretary will read No. 21. The Secretary read paragraph 1 of Section XXI appearing on page 57. THE CHAIRMAN: Will you take up the paragraph or will you have the whole section read? MR. HUNTER: Mr. Chairman, 1 move that we insert 15 per cent. THE CHAIRMAN: Just one moment, Mr. Hunter. I would like to get this cleared up. Do you want the entire sec- tion relating to this read, or do you want to take it up paragraph by para- graph ? MR. SNOW : These are so intimately related to each other that I suggest we read the whole section. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secretary read the whole section. The Secretary read Section XXI, ap- pearing on page 57. MR. BEEBE: Mr. Chairman, I move that alternative to No. 2 be substituted for both No. 1 and 2, with a provision until 30 days, and within that time 15 per cent, of the majority of the voters voting at such election. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will see whether he can get your amend- ment. Mr. Beebe moves that the alter- native to No. 2 be submitted for both No. 1 and No. 2. Do you so understand it? MR. BEEBE: I will make that 30 days after the passage. THE CHAIRMAN: Just one mo- ment. The Chair understands that you move that alternative to No. 2 be sub- stituted for No. 1 and No. 2. MR. BEEBE: Yes, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: Then you move to insert in the first blank, what number of days? MR. BEEBE : Thirty days. THE CHAIRMAN: Thirty days. And in the next blank, the amount of per cent? MR. BEEBE: Twenty-five per cent. Instead of 15. THE CHAIRMAN: Twenty-five per cent, instead of 15? December 15 377 1906 ME. BEEBE : And for the voters vot- ing, at the closing paragraph, ‘ ‘ A major- ity of the voters voting at such election . 1 ’ THE CHAIRMAN: At such election. Has the Secretary got this? THE SECRETARY: Yes, sir. MR. BEEBE: It reads now ‘‘upon the question. ’ * THE CHAIRMAN: Have you an amendment, Mr. Snow? MR. SNOW : Yes, I desire to offer an amendment to Mr. Beebe’s motion. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Beebe’s mo- tion. The Secretary will read the motion as amended by Mr. Beebe. We will read Mr. Snow’s amendment first. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Snow: * * * the City Council to have power to fix penalties for any fraud, forgery or deceit in the preparation and signing of the petition provided for. THE CHAIRMAN: That is an ad- dition, is it? MR. SNOW : Yes, an addition. THE CHAIRMAN : The Secretary will read that again, please. Mr. Snow’s amendment was re-read by the Secretary. THE CHAIRMAN: Will the Secre- tary now read the section as amended by Mr. Beebe and by Mr. Snow', so that the house may know what it has got before it? The Secretary read alternative to No. 2 as amended by Mr. Beebe and Mr. Snow. MR. RAYMER: Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of the section as amended. MR. WERNO: Mr. Chairman, I move to amend by making the per cent, of voters required 10 per cent, instead of 25 per cent. THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Werno moves to amend by striking out the figures 25 and inserting in lieu thereof the figure 10. Mr. Merriam. MR. MERRIAM: Mr. Chairman, do we have a separate vote on each of these provisions as to the 30 days and 25 per cent ? I should like to have a division upon those things. MR. O’DONNELL: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a division on the per- centage and on whether a majority of the voters voting may carry it, or a ma- jority at the election as Mr. Beebe pro- vides ? THE CHAIRMAN : There are three propositions here. Do you desire to di- vide it into two or three propositions? MR. O’DONNELL: Three. THE CHAIRMAN: There are three propositions here. MR. SNOW: Can not the same result be reached if Prof. Merriam or any other member of the Convention who are not agreed with the figures given offer an amendment to those figures? MR. MERRIAM: I want to get a vote on them separately, that is all. MR. SNOW : Exactly, get a vote on that. You can offer an amendment as Mr. Werno has done for the percentage of voters and the number of days after, require and get a direct vote on each proposition. THE CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen, the question that you are to decide is, does the house want the question divided? (A division was called for.) THE CHAIRMAN: Those who favor the division of this question will signify by saying aye. The viva voce vote left the Chairman in doubt. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll upon the division. MR. LATHROP: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: For what pur- pose does Mr. Lathrop rise? MR. LATHROP: Simply for informa- tion; what is the question before us? THE CHAIRMAN : We are voting upon the question as to whether there shall be a division. MR. MERRIAM: If there is a second from the house, with his consent I will withdraw my motion for a division, in order to save a roll call. December 15 378 1906 A VOICE : I accept the withdrawal. THE CHAIRMAN: Prof. Merriam withdraws his motion for a division of the question. MR. MERRIAM: I would like to move, Mr. Chairman, for a substitute for the number of days from 30 to 60 days. THE CHAIRMAN : Prof. Merriam moves to amend by striking out the fig- ures 30 and inserting in lieu thereof the figures 60. MR. McCORMICK: Strike out the word voting (The balance of Mr. Mc- Cormick’s remark was inaudible.) THE CHAIRMAN: I suggest that we have a vote on a single* amendment at' a time. It is impossible to put two questions at once. The question before the house is Mr. Merriam ’s motion to strike out the figures 30 and insert in lieu thereof the figures 60. MR. SNOW : On that I would like to say just a word in support of the mo- tion as made by Prof. Merriam. The intention of this provision is that in case legislation affecting public utili- ties shall have been passed by the City Council, that the voters of the city shall have an opportunity to pass a review upon that legislation before it shall be- come effective, if they so desire. Now, a period of 30 days is a very short per- iod in which to provide the necessary petition, and for that reason I believe that the amendment as offered by Prof. Merriam should be adopted. They should be given at least 60 days in which to prepare the petition and work up public sentiment if it may be necessary, and an ordinance of that kind, a public util- ity ordinance, will lose nothing of its value to the people of Chicago by laying over 60 days. THE CHAIRMAN : The question is upon the adoption of Prof. Merriam ’s substitute. As many as favor its adop- tion will signify by saying aye; opposed, no. The ayes have it and it is carried, and the figures 30 days are stricken out, and the figures 60 days put in. The next is Alderman Werno’s amend- ment to strike out the figures 25, and insert in lieu thereof the figures 10. MR. SNOW : Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the motion as made by Alderman Werno. We are entering somewhat upon a new field of legislation in the adoption as a part of the organic law of tlie city, of the principle of refer- endum, and I am quite clear, at least in my own mind, that the opportunity should not be offered to hold up and delay legis- lation unless it should be very clear that a very considerable portion, a very re- spectable minority of the people are op- posed to the legislation in question. Now, if there is any legislation passed against which there is a decided public sentiment, there will be no difficulty whatever in securing in a period of 60 days a petition of one-fourth of the voters, and it is not a fair proposition in my judgment to force upon the people of Chicago the trouble and turmoil and expense if you please of elections, when only a very small minority of the people have expressed a desire that that expense be met. It seems to me that" if there is any public sentiment which is large enough to be respectable in proportions, that there will be no difficulty in securing 25 per cent in a petition. Again, ^5 per cent, is the figure which has been fixed by state statute hereto- fore in the Public Policy Act, and under which we never have had any difficulty in securing a petition wherever there was a concerted effort made for that purpose. For that reason I oppose the cutting down to 15 per cent. MR. O’DONNELL: Mr. Chairman, in this particular section w'e are limited to a referendum to merely ordinances af- fecting public streets or alleys, a very narrow limitation it seems to me THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. O’Donnell, the question of the entire section will be December 15 379 1906 taken up later. The question now before the Convention is the substitution of the figures 10 for the figures 25. MR. O’DONNELL: I beg the Chair’s pardon. THE CHAIRMAN : The section itself is not under discussion. MR. O’DONNELL: All right, Mr. Chairman. I was trying to draft an amendment to fix that, and I lost count of the motions pending. I will address myself to that when we reach it. MR. McGOORTY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to amend the amendment of- fered by Alderman Werno by substitut- ing the word 15 per cent, for 10 per cent. I think that in this city, which possibly has 400,000 voters or 350,000 voters, that if 50,000 of the voters decide to take enough interest in any public question to sign a petition asking that any ordi- nance passed by the City Council be sub- mitted to a vote of the people, why that is a fair evidence that a large pro- portion of the people of the city feel a deep interest in the ordinance; and the requirement of 100,000 makes any initia- tive proposition in my opinion nugatory and of no avail. There isn’t in any city charter any provisions for a larger percentage than fifteen, and I think that, however one may view the whole pro- position of initiative and referendum, that a 15 per cent, limitation is reason- able and just. MR. B. A. ECKHART: Mr. Chair- man, I think 25 per cent, of the voters of the city would be about right. We all know how easy it is to get that number, and if the question that is to be sub- mitted to a vote of the people is meri- torious you will have no difficulty in se- curing 25 per cent., and, as has been stated by .Alderman Snow, if you do make the percentage too low you can easily secure 10 per cent, or 15 per cent., and in that way put this city to the expense of holding an election and pass- ing upon a question which might be quite expensive. I have no hesitancy in saying that a man could go out and get a peti- tion signed by the voters of this city for almost anything without very much diffi- culty on the slightest kind of pretense, without giving very much of a reason for it ; and therefore on that account you should make the limit reasonable, and 1 think 25 per cent, would be reasonable. MR. ROBINS: I think I know a little something, Mr. Chairman, about the ex- pense of getting up a 25 per cent, peti- tion. I have done something in that already. The actual expense in the case of the one before the last was $4,800; that was accounted for. I happened to be familiar with the difficulty of getting 25 per cent, of the voters of Chicago to sign legitimately any petition whatever. This question is one of a real referen- dum or a sham referendum ; a power that can really be exercised, or one that is prepared for the purpose of its not being exercised. If I know anything about the people of Chicago I know that a new charter which does not provide a fair referendum will not be accepted by the people of this city. That is only my opinion and I give it for what it is worth. Fifteen per cent, of the voters of this city is a fair referendum in my judgment. I should prefer ten. I should believe that there was no menace in 10, and I believe that 15 is a fair percentage. So far as the expense to the city is con- cerned there is no expense except the printing of the ballot. The election will be held at the next election. There is no provision for a special election in this matter.. It simply means the printing of the ballots. Now, if you wish to have a charter adopted that up to this time has provided that the aldermen shall have p four year term, or the duties of a mayor, a four year term, you have got to satisfy the people that the trust in aldermen and the mayor shall not be capable of some of the most serious violations that are possible. Otherwise, in my judgment, the people, or the majority of the voters of this city will be quite content with the December 15 380 1906 present old charter. Fifteen per cent, is the per cent, used whenever the referen- dums are used, as far as I know, in the larger cities. As far as I know there are only two large cities in which the per- centage is higher. In one of those cities it was made 50 per cent, simply for the purpose of having no referendum at all; and the result was that application was made to the State Legislature for a new charter based on that matter alone. Now, I do not know whether all the members of this Convention are familiar with how thoroughly the people of Chi- cago have been educated to believe in the referendum, and to exercise it. All that you have to do is to look over the records of the past five or six years to find in every ward of the city that by the wise and by the ignorant, so called, by the rich and by the poor, this power has been exercised for the purpose of expressing public sentiment on public questions; and so wisely have the people of this city discriminated in the past on any new question that was presented as to whether a man was a good alderman, and his record was satisfactory to them — he might be opposed to that particular public question — but the people have voted that the alderman be returned, and voted in favor of that proposition. I am saying this because 1 believe this refer- endum question is one of the most im- portant questions that this Convention will have to consider, and unless a refer- endum is provided the opposition to this charter will be greater because of that one point, and upon that point than upon any other point in this charter law. I believe in 15 per cent. . MR. BEEBE : I want to say that I am one of the few people who really believe in the people. I really believe that when the people elect a man to represent them in the City Council, or in any other legislative capacity, that the people expect that man to do the work; and I believe that if we select aldermen for a four year term, or a six year term, or for a ten year term, the people electing these men for any speci- fied term expect those people whom they have elected to do their work as legis- lators. But I believe in the referendum only on one proposition. I believe in the referendum as a check upon matters of franchise, and upon matters of fran- chise purely; and I can conceive of no condition whereby the people MR. MERRIAM: May I ask a ques- tion? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. MERRIAM: Do you believe in the referendum on bond issues? MR. BEEBE: On bond issues? MR. MERRIAM: Yes. MR. BEEBE: Possibly on bond is- sues 1 will say that on matters of revenue, possibly, also. MR. MERRIAM: It is provided for in the constitution, is it not? MR. BEEBE: Just on matters of revenue and on matters of franchise and not upon any general matters. I do not believe in the initiative referendum. I do not believe in the people initiating legislation. I believe they elect men for that purpose. I- believe 25 per cent, is a fair petition because it must be a petition where a manifest injustice has been done to the public. I believe that a large petition is far better than a small one. I proposed 15 per cent, in the first place, but I believe 25 per cent, is far better than 15. MR. TAYLOR: I wish just to add this word to this discussion: I have been for many years where I could see the popular effect of the referendum vote, and I wish to make it clear that among those who most need education in citizen- ship there is scarcely any better means of educating the electorate than by the submission of the referendum on all ques- tions of public policy. I wish also to make the point that in proportion as the people favor the referendum will there be a rise in the percentage. Raising of the percentage makes it impossible for December 15 381 1906 them to exercise their prerogative. In asking for the submission of the refer- endum vote I therefore favor 15 per cent, and believe that is a safe percentage. MR. McCORMICK: It occurs to me that it is desirable to suggest, that a desirable suggestion may be made at this point; 1 don’t see anywhere a reso- lution that the council be authorized to order a referendum vote. Not long since the traction question was before the council very accurately and very actively, and provoked a great deal of discussion on the floor of the council and all over the city, and at that time the council saw fit to pass a resolu- tion that none should be adopted until after a referendum had been had upon it. I believe that was a very good pro- position. THE CHAIRMAN: That matter will come up when that section come!? up for discussion. MR. McCORMICK: I am discussing this in connection with that section. It seems to me a petition might be expen- sive to get when there is no desire for it, when there is not much desire for it. If the people had any reason to believe that the council were selling them out there would be no trouble in getting a petition. Places where petitions would be signed would be thronged by voters anxious to put their names down. Now, if we have a provision in the charter that the council must have a referendum vote upon every franchise, and in the franchise considered to be absolutely fair by everybody, and that the council does not ask for a referendum, nobody would object; there would be no desire for a petition of even 5 per cent. If there is a certain question as to whether it is desirable to grant the franchise most aldermen will be very glad to put it up to their people. An aldermen does not like to be accused, even by the ignorant and malicious, of having wrong senti- ments when he has not got them. And if there was a question of doubt an aider- man would much rather put it to a refer- endum vote than advocate it in his ward ; then if there is a question of doubt and some alderman proposed to have a referendum upon this, a majority vote will at once arouse public suspicion, and you could get your 25 cent, in that case just as easily as 15 per cent, in the other, and not have so much red tape about it. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, if it can be done under rule, I will move that the question as amended by Mr. Beebe be further amended so that the council can call for a referendum. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would have to rule that was not germane. The question must be upon the amendment by substituting the figures 15 for the figures 10, and the figures 10 for the figures 25. MR. WERNO: Just a minute; I de- sire to say that it seems to be an opinion quite general among the members here that 15 per cent, would be nearer right than 10 per cent, or 25 per cent. I am willing to accept the amendment of Mr. McGoorty, making it 15; I believe that if we make that per cent 15, that is all that ought to be reasonably asked; that would mean a petition with at least 60,000 names to it, and that is certainly quite a respectable minority of the voters of the City of Chicago. MR. DEVER: I intended to discuss another question, but under the ruling of the Chair I expect it would not be proper at this time. I understand the motion made by Mr. Beebe is to substi- tue alternative 2 for 2 and 1. THE CHAIRMAN : Yes. MR. DEVER: And that the motion before the house is that the per cent, be made 15, not 25? THE CHAIRMAN: That is the ques- tion. MR. DEVER: The question we are dis- cussing is simply the question of the amendment, the amendment of Alderman Werno, dr Professor Merriam. THE CHAIRMAN: Alderman Werno December 15 382 1906 has withdrawn his amendment of 10 per cent., I believe. MR. DEVER: Just one word; it has been said by some gentleman on the floor here that it was an easy matter, a rather easy matter to procure a petition containing 25 per cent, of the names of the registered voters of this city. To those who have had some actual experi- ence in that matter, that may seem to be a little strange. I believe they would be prepared to say that is not so. It is an extremely difficult matter, and it is only in an extreme case, and in a case where the whole populace is more or less aroused that it is even possible to get a 25 per cent, petition, and it is only possible then when we have interests working for the petition w T hieh feel that they can afford to spend a consid- erable amount of money in procuring that petition. It is true, as Alderman McCormick has said, that if there is an ordinance pro- posed or passed by the City Council that may be inimical to the best interests of the city then the people en masse may want to sign a petition. But that is not the difficulty. It is easy enough to get the voters to consent to that petition if you can procure ways and means of re- presenting the petition to the voters, or in some convenient way where they can sign it. But if we are going to kill off the idea of a referendum altogether, if we want to wipe out the idea of a refer- endum in this city, I can imagine no better way to do it than to fix the period of time as 30 days and the per cent, of signers at 25 per cent., and the other amendment proposed of requiring a ma- jority of the voters to vote at the elec- tion. THE CHAIRMAN: The section relat- ing to the 30 days has been changed. MR. HUNTER: Mr. Chairman, when I arose in the first place to try to stop all this discussion I probably was in advance of my time fifty years; I will admit that these gentlemen are that much behind. I proposed 15 per cent. I did it advisedly. There are men here in this body now that have s^en men standing in this building with petitions on the radiators asking everybody to sign as they passed and telling them some- thing that was not true. There are men in this room now that can vouch that men who have gone out with a petition to get them to sign for the referendum lied, that they told them they were sign- ing for something that they were not signing for; and I am one of those men, and there are others here, that I can call by name if necessary. I am one of those men who have been asked to sign in the corridor of this building. And I have been in offices of members of this Con- vention when they w r ere asked to sign for the same thing, for something that was totally different from what they were afked to sign for. The explana- tion of these people was not satisfactory. When I moved 15 per cent. I did not anticipate or expect we would have all this discussion, and I moved it just as a premonition of what was coming. I say this to you, Mr. Chairman and gentle- men of the Convention, that 15 per cent, is just as few or is just as little as there should be. And there should be also something stated that a man should get jerked up pretty quick as soon as he misrepresents. I don’t care who it is for or what it is for, if he misrepresents he should be called down. There are people in this room that can tell you, and I am one of them, that they were asked to sign petitions and told what they were for, and that it was an absolute lie. I have no fear of the press or anybody else. I don’t have to cater to anybody. So I say to you, Mr. Chairman and gen- tlemen, that it was an absolute falsehood, when they asked me to sign for some- thing that was not the truth. I believe in the truth, and I believe in standing for a principle, and I respect those that will stand for a principle, but not to hood- wink people, to grab them as they pass December 15 383 1906 through a corridor and tell them they are signing something that is not so. I again move that my original motion of 15 per cent, be inserted in this^ amendment we are talking to now. MR. SNOW : Mr. Chairman, I desire the indulgence of the Convention just a minute while I say a word on Alderman Werno ’s motion for 15 per cent. The principle of the referendum in democratic governments has been worked out more completely in Switzerland, where it really originated, than in any other democratic government; and in the various cantons of Switzerland the number of names required to a petition ranges from 12*4 to 20 per cent, of the voters. MR. CHURCH: How about their population f MR. SNOW: The question of popula- tion cuts no figure where the percentage basis is used. There are just as many more to get in proportion to the number of voters there are. In addition to that the Swiss provision calls for the most careful scrutiny of the petition. They do not allow a petition to be secured as we have been in the habit of securing a petition in this coun- try in our efforts for a referendum. There is no haphazard gathering of < names. The provisions in nearly all are that the signing of a petition shall be safeguarded with the same limitations that are required in voting. Citizens de- siring to sign a petition — and in some cantons they have an oral provision — but those desiring to express their approval of a petition must go before the election officer of what is equivalent to our pre- cincts, in order that he may express that desire. Now, if in a country where the princi- ple has been worked out most fully the number required ranges as high as 20 per cent, with the additional restrictions upon the manner in which the petition was signed, then I submit to this Con- vention that a requirement of 25 per cent., in a free and easy manner in which petitions are made and secured here, is a reasonable requirement. MR. DEYER: I do not wish to dis- cuss the question. Under our rule five o’clock would be the adjourning hour. I have an appointment at five o ’clock, and for that reason I move that we adjourn. MR. REYELL: I want to make a motion. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dever has moved that we adjourn. The Chair has no choice but to put the motion. MR. SHEPARD: With Alderman Dever ’s consent, I ask to make a motion in regard to procedure next week; I move you set the subject of revenue — I move you that the subject of revenue be made a special order for 7:30 o’clock next Tuesday evening, December 18. MR. SHEPARD: I move you that education be made a special order for Thursday evening at 7:30 o ’clock. MR. SHEPARD : That woman suf- frage be made a special order to be taken up immediately upon the disposition of the subject of education. THE CHAIRMAN : As many as favor that will signify by saying aye. MR. EIDMANN ; Before that is put, I have a resolution I wish to hand in to the Secretary. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will ask that the motion to adjourn be not put until the pending matters are off the desk. The question is upon Mr. Shep- ard’s motion; as many as favor that signify by saying aye. MR. ROBINS: In regard to this matter of woman suffrage, I wish the time might be set as specific as the other matters, because there are a number of ladies who wish to attend, and I think they have a perfect right to attend, and it seems to me that should be done. THE CHAIRMAN: That will be pos- sible before the week is concluded ; we will know just how much is to be taken up. MR. SHEPARD: I moved that it be December 15 384 1906 taken up after education, it should be at the conclusion of that. THE CHAIRMAN: There will be at least 24 hours’ notice. MR. G. W. NIXON: Why not make it for Wednesday afternoon? MR. SNOW : Will we have sufficient business for both those afternoons? THE CHAIRMAN: I would judge so, by our past experience. MR. J. W. DIXON: Would it not be well to have one of these subjects taken up in the afternoon? THE CHAIRMAN: The motion before the house is Mr. Shepard ’s motion : Mr. Dixon suggests that it might be possible to start after the revenue debate on Wednesday afternoon. We have two meetings before that. MR. TAYLOR : I submit that the subject of education cannot be fairly taken up in the afternoon, on account of so many desiring to attend the discussion that can only attend in the evening. THE CHAIRMAN: What will you gentlemen do with this matter? (Cries of ‘ ‘ Question. ”) THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? MR. J. W. DIXON: I will withdraw my motion. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor will signify by saying aye; those op- posed, no; it is carried and so ordered. Now, there is a communication here from Mister Do you desire to ad- journ before discussing this matter? (Cries of “No, no.”) THE CHAIRMAN: Then let the Chair put the motion to adjourn. As many as favor adjourning now signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. The motion to adjourn is lost. A VOICE: Roll call, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the roll be called. Yeas— Burke, Crilly, Dever, Guerin, Linehan, MacMillan, McGoorty, McKin- ley, O’Donnell, Rainey, Robins, Rosen- thal, Shedd, Shepard, Taylor, Vopicka, Werno, Zimmer — 18. Nays — Beebe, Bennett, Brown, Carey, s Church, Dixon, G. W., Eekhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Gansbergen, Hunter, Kittleman, Lathrop, Lundberg, McCormick, Raymer, Revell, Shanahan,. Smulski, Snow, Sunny, Young — 24. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the motion to adjourn the yeas are 18 and the nays 24. The motion is lost. MR. SNOW : I ask that the previous question MR. BURKE : A point of order MR. SNOW : I ask for the previous question on the amendment offered by Alderman Werno. MR. BURKE: A point of order. I take it our rules provide that we shall be in session from two to five o’clock. We are governed, outside of the rules adopt- ed, by Roberts’ Rules of Order. In or- der to suspend the rules it would be ne- cessary to have a two-thirds’ vote. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chairman does not understand that that was adopt- ed as a rule; the only thing that was adopted as the rules of this Convention are the rules contained in this book. The resolution was adopted wffiich was in no sense a rule; and the Convention has uniformly violated the resolution, and upon the question to adjourn the Chair rules that the majority rule. (Cries of “Question.”) MR. REVELL: I would like to speak upon this question. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Revell has the floor. MR. SNOW : I withdraw that point for the moment. MR. REVELL: I rise to favor the 25 per cent, petition. I hope the con- ditions will come in the City of Chicago where the City of Chicago will put itself in a position to do business. If you are going to say one-sixth of the vot- ers of the City of Chicago shall hold up some reasonable proposition which the council may approve and defer it December 15 385 1906 from election to election, you will not under other provisions of this proposi- tion be able to get anything through here, because if you say that a majority of the voters that vote upon a given question at the election shall decide the matter, then you are also saying at the same time that a small proportion of the voters of the City of Chicago can carry or defeat some proposition which may be for the benefit of the people of the City of Chicago, and therefore at each election 15 per cent, can sign a peti- tion and defeat it from election to elec- tion. The point was made here that a peti- tion of 25 per cent, would cost from $2,000 to $4,000. Well, suppose it does cost $2,000 to $4,000, should we not con- sider the fact that if one-sixth of the voters should say we must have an elec- tion that the people would then be sad- dled with an expense of $60,000 to $100,000 for the election? MR. ROBINS: Permit me to ask a question: Where will the expense come in, Mr. Revell, of $60,000 to $100,000 for a referendum, to have a referendum taken at an election? MR. REVELL: I understand that an election costs between $60,000 and $100,000. A large portion of that ex- pense will be attributable to what we are talking about today. MR. ROBINS: It can only be the printing of the ballots. I think Mr. Re- vell will admit that he is mistaken in that. MR. REVELL: I take that part out of my statement in connection with that matter. But it does seem to me in view of the whole situation here regard- ing the matter of whether or not the argument is the majority of votes against a general proposition, or the majority of votes cast at the election, you are put- ting yourself up against a proposition whereby the City Council will not be able to put through anything that may be objected to by one sixth of the voters who may not be in favor of spending money or seeing anything through that ought to be done for the benefit of the City of Chicago. We should get into shape here some time where the City of Chicago can do business. (Cries of ‘ ‘ Question, question.”) MR. MERRIAM: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that while the difference between 15 and 25 per cent may not be very much in per cent, it is really a very much more vital point in the char- ter than many of the members suspect. I think that the adoption of the elimina- tion clause and restricting it in other ways, goes far towards making the char- ter ridiculous. We have already elimi- nated without voting the proposition contained in number 21 — 1; and we are eliminating without voting or discus- sion the proposition contained in num- ber 22 — 2, which a great many people favor. I do not favor it myself. But there are a very great many people in the city who do favor it. We are not boiling it down, after eliminating the initiative and the general referendum, we are boiling it down to merely the question of franchises to public utility corporations. The restriction of the scope of the referendum is in my judgment wise, but we nevertheless should, in making such restrictions to the form of the referendum, give a type of refer- endum that would be absolutely free from reproach by anybody in this com- munity, as being unfair, or being, as it has been said in this Convention, a sham and a mock referendum. Now, the general principle of the referendum is to provide for a referendum upon a petition of from 10 to 15 per cent of the voters. We are practically doub- ling that amount by requiring 25 per cent. Twenty-five per cent of the voters means the signatures of at least nine- ty thousand persons in this city, and it seems to me that if a question is so im- portant that fifty to sixty thousand peo- ple demand a vote on it that it is unfair December 15 386 1906 from such a vote to require an addition of forty thousand more voters; that is too much; it is too limited, and too re- stricted. It would be an unpopular part of the charter. We have eliminated the referendum in many ways, and the ini- tiative; we are confining ourselves to franchises on public utility questions. We should be careful not to make it too limited. MR. SNOW: I move that the roll be called. MR. O’DONNELL: I sincerely trust, Mr. Chairman, that those who are in favor of this large number of pe- titions will be fair to those of us who disagree with them. Now the hour is late, Mr. Chairman, and this is an all- important question, and I hope that the gentlemen who are calling so vigorous- ly for the previous question will not lay the flattering unction to their souls that this question is going to be decided on a snap judgment; for it is not. It is one of the vital questions THE CHAIRMAN: Will the gentle- men remain in their places? MR. O’DONNELL: One of the vital questions of the charter; it is one of the vital questions that will make for the adoption of your charter by the people, or that will be against it. Now, Chica- go is in earnest, I sincerely believe, on this proposition, that the people want to have a voice, beyond saying that they can interrupt or destroy an ordi- nance, or legislation, or interfere with business; they are in earnest that they shall have a voice in the transaction of their own business. The city officials are not the governors, nor the masters of the people, nor are they elected to govern the people. As has been said on the floor of this house, their function is to represent the people; to represent their wishes, their wants, their desires, their interests. Now are we going to destroy this referendum? Are we going to make it so that it cannot act, and will not act? All the cities of the coun- try, the great majority of the cities of the country who have adopted this ini- tiative, or this referendum, confine themselves to 15 per cent. San Fran- cisco, I think, confines itself to 2 per cent, provided that that 2 per cent is not less than 1,000 votes. Now for you to heap on this referendum the neces- sity to go out and get seventy-five to eighty or ninety thousand votes upon some proposition that the people are vi- tally interested in is tying the hands of the people. It is in favor — and I want to charge it — it is in favor of the pub- lic utility franchise-seeking corpora- tions that have done their best to kill Chicago. Now, as I said before, this is a late hour to discuss this proposition. I have several things to say on this. We went through such a volume of busi- ness today that I never, thought we should reach it. I do not think it is fair, gentlemen, to press this vote to- night. This is one of the things that will mean success to our charter in Chicago, or it means its death. Now, you can do as you please in this. I sincerely hope this matter will not be pressed here without a full, fair and complete and free discussion of it. I say this to you, Alderman Snow. It is your motion to cut off the debate on this question. I say this to you, be- cause if you do not give a fair discus- sion of this question here other men in this Convention will insist on it and it means the loss of your charter. MR. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, I renew my call for the previous question. MR. LINEHAN: Mr. Chairman THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would suggest that the vote should come to a head by a direct vote, and if the Convention will allow I will put the question. Do you desire any further discussion? MR. LINEHAN: This is the first } time the previous question has been moved in this Convention. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I wish December 15 387 1906 to say a word. I have got to go and I wish to be recorded as voting against the 15 per cent. ME. COLE: I have got to go, and I am in favor of 15 per cent. MR. MacMILLAN: Mr. Chairman, 1 move this be made a special order for 2 o ’clock on Monday afternoon. MR. SNOW: I will move that it lay on the table, if necessary. MR. MacMILLAN: I want to vote on this question and I think it is very important. MR, LINEHAN: I have the floor. THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Linehan has the floor. MR. LINEHAN: I want to say this: This is Saturday afternoon, and I have no objection whatsoever to letting this go over. It will be discussed in the Sunday papers tomorrow and there will be a freer and better thought on Mon- day if you want to take it up and act on it then. It doesn’t come with good grace at this time just because there is a possibility of voting this question in favor of the 25 per cent, with men who are on record for years as advo- cates of this referendum question ab- sent from this meeting today. They are unable to attend, and I grant you — of course that is no excuse. This question should stand over till we have had a fair and deliberate discussion. We have acted with the desire of giving every- body a free show to express their thoughts, and this is the first time in this Convention, so far, that an effort has been made to force any question to a vote in such a manner. I am distinct- ly opposed to voting on this question at the present time. I think it should lay over until some time next week. MR. SHANAHAN: It has frequent- ly been said in this Convention that any of these matters can be reconsidered at any time. Now I do not believe that there is any special person that is stand- ing for a 25 per cent, or a 20 per cent, or a 15 per cent, but let us get a test vote on it. If the 25 per cent proposi- tion won’t carry, try some other per- centage, but don’t put it off from day to day. If 25 per cent carries today and you want to reconsider it on Mon- day, or any other day, you can do so. Because of these considerations I think we should proceed. MR. BURKE: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. BURKE: Is it your understand- ing that in case the motion is lost it would require a two-thirds vote to re- consider? MR. SHANAHAN: No, sir; I do not so understand. MR. SNOW: Question. THE CHAIRMAN : Are you ready for the question? (Cries of “ question. ”) THE CHAIRMAN: The question is on the substitution of the figures 15 for the figures 25. MR. DEYER: To a point of order. The question was on the previous ques- tion. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the meaning of the previous question when you take a direct vote? MR. DEYER: I understood that was the motion. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not recognize that motion. MR. SNOW : I withdraw the motion. MR, DEVER: Then I move to defer the consideration of this question until the next meeting of the Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll on the motion to defer. MR. McGOORTY: Mr. Chairman, what is the pending motion? THE CHAIRMAN: To defer until next meeting. Yeas — Burke, Crilly, Dever, Dixon, G. W.; Eckhart, J. W.; Guerin, Linehan, Lundberg, McGoorty, McKinley, Rai- ney, Robins, Taylor, Vopicka, Werno, Zimmer — 16. Nays — Beebe, Bennett, Brown, Carey, December 15 388 1906 Church, Eckhart, B. A.; Eidmann, Gans- bergen, Hill, Hunter, Kittleman, Lath- rop, McCormick, Merriam, O’Donnell, Pendarvis, Raymer, Revell, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Sunny — 25. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the mo- tion to defer the yeas are 16 and the noes 25, and the motion is lost, and the question is upon the adoption of the substitute. , MR. DEYER: I would like to ask for information from the Chair. What number constitutes a quorum in this Convention? THE CHAIRMAN: There are 41 members voting, and a quorum consists of 37 members. MR. DEYER: And 41 vote? MR. SNOW: Question. MR. ROSENTHAL: I simply wish to say a word on this proposition. I myself am very much opposed to the extension principle of the referendum. And I have on the table an amend- ment that I would like to propose, but if we are going to have a referendum on any proposition it does seem to me it should not be a sham referendum; and it ought not to be too difficult to get the number of voters. Now there is a real difference of opinion and an honest difference of opinion between 15 per cent and 25 per cent, and I think that is one of the matters on which both sides ought to do a little trim- ming. I therefore propose that that number be changed to 20 per cent. MR. SNOW: I would like to ask Mr. Rosenthal if he would not be willing to withdraw that motion until we have had the vote on 15. MR. ROSENTHAL: I am perfectly willing to do that. MR. SNOW: That may possibly car- ry, but we should have a straight vote on 15 and consider that motion after- wards. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary call the roll on the straight vote of 15 instead of 25. Yeas — Burke, Carey, Crilly, Dever, Eckhart, J. W.; Gansbergen, Guerin, Kittleman, Linehan, Lundberg, Mc- Goorty, McKinley, Merriam, O’Donnell, Pendarvis, Rainey, Taylor, Yopicka, Werno, Zimmer — 20. Nays — Beebe, Bennett, Brown, Church, Dixon, G. W.; Eckhart, B. A.; Eidmann, Hill, Hunter, Lathrop, McCor- mick, Raymery Revell, Robins, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Sunny — 21. MR. O’DONNELL: Call the ab- sentees, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the absentees roll. THE SECRETARY: Absent, or not voting? Absent or Not Voting — Badenoch, Baker, Beilfuss, Brosseau, Clettenberg, Cole, Cruice, Dixon, T. J.; Erickson, Fisher, Fitzpatrick, Foreman, Graham, Haas, Harrison, Hoyne, Jones, MacMil- lan, Oehne, Owens, Paullin, Patterson, Post, Powers, Rinaker, Sethness, Swift, Thompson, Walker, White, Wilkins, Wilson, Young — 33. ‘ THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the mo- tion to substitute the figures 15 for 25 the yeas are 20 and the noes 21; on the motion to substitute MR. BURKE: Mr. Chairman, I de- sire a verification of the roll. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary verify the roll. MR. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, to a point of order. Verification, after the result lias been announced? THE CHAIRMAN: Let the roll be verified, if there is any doubt about it. MR. ROBINS: Mr. Chairman, to a point of order. I want to know whether I may change my vote from aye to no? THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is under the impression that you voted no. December 15 389 1906 MR. BURKE : He may change it, Mr. Chairman, cannot he? MR. ROBINS: I simply wish to know whether I may change my vote from aye to no or the other way? THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would rule no, after the vote has been an- nounced. MR. McGOORTY: To a point of or- der. Has not the Chair by permitting a verification of the roll reserved to the members of the Convention the right to change their vote, before he has actually announced the vote? Is not that in order under Roberts’ Rules of Order. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair per- mitted a verification of the roll to as- certain whether or not there was any error, and because it was such a close vote. But that does not carry the privilege of changing the vote, and that was not in the mind of the Chair. MR. McGOORTY: That might not have been in the mind of the Chair, but it was not announced to the Convention, Mr. Chairman. MR. RAINEY: Mr. Chairman, be- fore leaving the Convention Mr. Cole announced that he wished to be re- corded as voting aye. Did you so record him? THE CHAIRMAN: There is no rule to permit an absent vote. Will the Secretary continue? MR. ROBINS: I wish to give notice for reconsideration of this matter. THE CHAIRMAN: The notice will be recorded. The Secretary has some communications which he will please read. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, T think I am entitled to consideration. T made a motion that the per cent be made 20, and that was accepted by Al- derman Snow. THE CHAIRMAN: What was the motion? MR. ROSENTHAL: That the per cent be changed to 20. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is un- able to hear anything. MR. McCORMICK: The motion was that the per cent be 20 instead of 25. MR. ROSENTHAL: And that was accepted by Alderman Snow. MR. SNOW: All legislation is a matter of compromise, and as the ma- jority has gone on record against 15, and the voting was very close, I myself would favor the 20 per cent proposition. MR. ROSENTHAL: I ask a vote. MR. SNOW: I second the motion. MR. RAYMER: Since the roll call was announced a number of members have left the hall. I think we should be satisfied with this close vote on this matter and it should now be deferred. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is of the same opinion. MR. RAYMER: I move it be de- ferred until next Monday, at 2 o ’clock. MR, REYELL: I second that. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion. All those in favor of its adoption will say aye; opposed, no; the motion is adopted. One moment for announcements, then Mr. O’Donnell will be recognized. To the Charter Convention of the City of Chicago: Gentlemen — In compliance with the resolution offered by Mr. Merriam on December 6th, 1906, and adopted by this Convention on December 10th, 1906, I have the honor to appoint the following delegates as members of the committee on said resolution provided for: Frank I. Bennett, Chairman. Charles E. Merriam. Frank T. Hoyne. B. A. Eckhart. Raymond Robins. John G. Shedd. David E. Shanahan. Very respectfully, MILTON J. FOREMAN, Chairman. THE SECRETARY: The committee December 15 390 1906 on Rules, Procedure and General Plan will meet Tuesday, December 18, 1906, at 2 o’clock p. m., at the headquarters of the Convention, 171 Washington street. MR. O’DONNELL: I move this Con- vention do now adjourn. THE CHAIRMAN: The Convention stands adjourned until Monday at 2 o’clock, and gentlemen will take strict legal and judicial notice of it. And the Convention stood adjourned to meet Monday, December 17, 1906, at 2 o’clock p. m. December 15 391 1906 MEMORANDA. These memoranda indicate the various matters adopted by the Convention. (See page 50 and succeeding pages of the proceedings. I. SCOPE OF PROPOSED LEGIS- LATION. Action on all paragraphs under this section has been deferred. II. CONSOLIDATION. 1. The corporate authorities existing at present for the government of the park systems of Chicago shall be abol- ished and the management of the parks shall become a department of the city government. 2. The administration of the public school system of the city of Chicago and of the Public Library shall con- stitute departments of the city govern- ment. III. THE MAYOR. 1. The charter shall continue sub- stantially the provisions of the pres- ent laws regarding the qualifications and executive functions of the mayor. 2. The charter shall continue the provisions of the present laws regard- ing the relation of the mayor to the city council. Resolved, that it is the sense of this Convention that a clause be inserted in the charter designating a city official who shall act as mayor during the ab- sence or inability of the mayor. First Alternative to 2 b. The mayor shall have a right to a seat in the city council, but shall have no vote. He shall have the right to speak and present messages and intro- duce measures subject to the general rules of procedure of the city council. Second Alternative to 2: The charter shall continue the pres- ent provisions of the law regarding the relation of the mayor to the city coun- cil, except that he shall not preside at the meetings of the city council, but the city council shall elect its own presiding officer from its members. 3. The veto power of the mayor shall be as now prescribed by law. 4. The term of office of the mayor shall be four years. IV. ELECTIONS. First alternative to 1: Elective city officers shall be nominated under a sys- tem of direct primaries, with appropri- ite provision for independent nomina- tions by petition. 2. The names of all the nominees for each office shall be printed on the ballot under the title of the office for which they are candidates, in alphabeti- cal order, and the designation of the party, if any, to which they belong. The following resolution on the sub- ject of suffrage for women is still pend- ing: 3. The charter shall contain no pro- vision for conferring the right of suf- frage on women. 4. a. The election of all city offi- cers, including those for the municipal court, shall be held in the spring. Pro- vided, however, that judges of the mu- nicipal court shall be elected at a time when no offices other than judicial are to be filled. 5. Candidates and political commit- tees shall be required to make sworn statements of receipts and expenditures of any campaign for nomination or election. December 15 392 1906 V. CIVIL SERVICE. 1. All departments of the city gov- ernment shall be under an appropriate civil service law. Alternative to 1 : a. The civil service law shall apply to the department of public parks. The application of the civil service law to the department of public parks shall not operate in and of itself to dis- charge the present employees. b. The civil service law shall apply to the municipal court. The Bailiff and Chief Clerk of the Municipal Court shall be subject to re- moval by a majority of the judges of the court, after a hearing, for incompe- tency, inefficiency, malfeasance or mis- feasance in office. The reasons for such removal shall be specified in writing and shall be spread at large upon the records of the court. Section 2 of Civil Service, together with resolution printed in the proceed- ings of December 6, have been referred to the Committee on Municipal Elec- tions, Appointment and Tenure of Office, with instructions to report to the Con- vention within ten days. VI. THE CITY COUNCIL. The charter shall provide for redis- tricting the city into seventy wards, of compact and contiguous territory, and with an equitable distribution of area and population, as soon as possible after the adoption of this charter, one aider- man to be elected from each ward. The city shall thereafter be redis- tricted by the City Council every ten years after the federal census has been taken, but no more than seventy wards shall be made. 2. The compensation of aldermen shall be at the rate of thirty-five hun- dred dollars per annum. The term of office of aldermen shall be four years. The aldermen shall be elected at the same time as the mayor. • VII. POWERS OF THE CITY COUN- CIL IN GENERAL. 1. The powers of the city council shall be as now prescribed by law, ex- cept as modified by this charter. The city council shall have all powers of local legislation which can, under the con- stitution, be vested in a municipality ; subject to the constitution of the state, the provisions of the charter, and the general laws of the state. 2. The specification of particular powers shall never be construed as a limitation upon the general powers granted by the charter ; it being in- tended to grant and bestow upon the City of Chicago all the powers of mu- nicipal government which can constitu- tionally be delegated to it by the legislature, and which are not expressly prohibited to it by this charter, or by the constitution of the state ; and are not in conflict with any general law of the state. 3. No ordinance shall be passed finally on the day it is introduced, except when approved by an affirmative vote of two- thirds of all the members of the city council. VIII. POWERS OF THE CITY COUN- CIL WITH REGARD TO OFFICES. The office of City Clerk shall cease to be a Charter office, and the City Council shall have power by ordinance to provide for the method of choosing the City Clerk and to provide for the duty of the City Clerk. The City Treasurer shall be ex-officio city collector. 3. The City Council shall have power to investigate any department of the city government and the official acts and conduct any city officer and the making, terms, and performance of December 15 393 1906 any public contract, and for the purpose of ascertaining facts in connection with such investigation to compel the attend- ance of witnesses and the production of material documents and books. IX. POLICE POWER. 1. The police power of the city shall extend to the prevention of crime, to the preservation and advancement of local peace, safety, morals, health, order and comfort, and to the prevention of fraud and extortion within the community, by measures of regulation, licensing, require- ment of bonds, inspection, registration, restraint and prohibition, as well as by the establishment of municipal services. X. REVENUE. Section X and alternative stand as a special order. XI. INDEBTEDNESS. 1. The charter shall vest in the city the power to assume and incur debts and issue bonds in the manner and to the extent that such power is permitted to be granted by the constitutional amendment of 1904. XII. EXPENDITURES. 1. The provisions of the present city act regarding the annual appropriation ordinanc, the limitation of expendi- tures and contracts by such appropria- tions, the keeping of a separate fund for each appropriation, and the require- ment of warrants for payments, shall be substantially embodied in the charter. XIII. PROPERTY. 1. The city may acquire property by purchase or condemnation for any pur- pose for which it may exercise the power of taxation. The following paragraph together with all substitutes and amendments thereto as printed in the proceedings of i December 14, 1906, have been re-re- ferred to the Committee on Rules, Pro- cedure and General Plan. 2. The city may so acquire property outside of as well as within the city lim- its for any municipal purpose. XIV. CONTRACTS. 1. Municipal services may be per- formed and municipal works carried out by the city directly or by means of con- tract. XV. STREETS AND PUBLIC PLACES. All paragraphs of Section XV are de- ferred to be considered together with the subject of Revenue. XVI. PUBLIC UTILITIES. 1. The provisions of the Mueller law and the limitations contained therein (including the twenty-year limit on franchises), except as herein otherwise provided, shall be extended to all in- tramural railways, subways, telephone, telegraph, gas, electric lighting and power plants, and other local public utility works operated in, over, under or upon the streets and public places of the city, also to docks, wharves and their necessary appurtenances. 2. The present powers regarding water works and water supply shall be con- tinued. 3. Any consent granted by the city for the private operation of public util- ity works shall be made subject to the continuing exercise of the city’s street and police powers concerning the struc- ture or works permitted, whether re- served in the grant or not. Alternative to 4: Such consent hereafter granted, shall further be subject to- the power of the city, whether expressly reserved in the grant or not, to make reasonable regu- lations of the charges to be made in the operation of such public utilities. December 15 394 1906 The city shall have no power to grant away or limit the subsequent exercise of this right, except that the question of rea- sonableness of any such regulation shall always be determined with due regard to the provisions and limitations of the grant under which such public utility is being operated. 5. Such consent shall further be sub- ject to the right of the city to require adequate service and reasonable exten- sions at all times. No city officer or employe shall di- rectly or indirectly ask for, demand or accept for his own use, or for the use of another, any free pass, frank, gratui- ty, gratuitous service, or discrimina- tion from any person or corporation holding or using any franchise, privi- lege or license granted by the city. But this prohibition shall not ex- tend to the furnishing of free transpor- tation to members of the police and fire departments while on duty. The charter shall contain appropriate provisions for the enforcement of this prohibition. XVIL PARKS, BOULEVARDS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS. 1. The management of the parks and parkways and small parks, and of any forest preserve or outer belt park sys- tem shall be vested in a board of park commissioners consisting of nine mem- ber who shall be appointed by the mayor of the City of Chicago — three from the West Side, three from the South Side and three from the North Side; -three for a term of two years, three for a term of four years, and three for a term of six years, their successors to be ap- pointed for a term of six years. Any vacancy which may occur shall be filled by appointment of the mayor, for the unexpired term. No appointment, how- ever, shall be acted upon until at a subsequent meeting of the City Coun- cil. The park commissioners shall be ap- pointed by the mayor, with the consent of two-thirds of the members of the City Council. The following paragraph was de- ferred, for consideration together with the subject of Revenue. 2. Taxes may be levied and bonds is- sued for park purposes by the City Council only upon the request of the park board; and park funds shall be paid out only upon the order of the park board. XVIII. EDUCATION. Section XVIII and alternatives stand as a special order. XIX. LIBRARY. 1. The management of the public library shall be vested in a board of nine library directors, constituted as at present, and with the present powers and duties, except as herein otherwise provided. 2. The term of office of members of the library board shall be six years, three retiring every two years. 3. The library board may establish branch libraries and reading rooms, sub- ject to the approval of the City Coun- cil. XX. PENAL, CHARITABLE AND REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS. 1. The charter shall grant to the city, in addition to the powers which it has now: a. Authority to maintain alms- houses. b. Authority to maintain free lodg- ing houses, and free employment bu- reaus in connection therewith. c. Authority to maintain creches for infants. d. Authority to maintain training schools for dependent and indigent children. December 15 395 1906 2. The city shall have the power to contract with the county of Cook or .otherwise provide for the detentions, housings and care of indigent persons, prisoners, or dependent or delinquent children. This section shall contain a clause that the City of Chicago can contract with the county of Cook for the erec- tion and maintenance of a Juvenile Court building. XXI. INITIATIVE AND REFEREN- DUM. In Section XXI the proposition to in- sert the figures 25 in the blank before the words “per cent’’ in the alternative to No. 2, has prevailed. There is before the Convention a motion to insert the figures 60 before the word “days’’ in the second alterna- tive to No. 2. There is also a motion pending to substitute alternative to No. 2 for para- graphs Nos. 1 and 2. The following motion is also pending: The City Council shall have the power to fix penalties for any fraud, forgery or deceit in the preparation and sign- ing of the petition provided for. Resolutions offered from the floor of the Convention, but not acted upon. BY MR. BENNETT: XXII. 5. SECTION Nothing in this act shall be construed to modify, impair or affect or to confer upon the city coun- cil power to pass any ordinance modi- fying, impairing or conflicting with the provisions of Section 18 of an act en- titled “An act to provide for the an- nexation of cities, incorporated towns and villages or parts of same to cities, incorporated towns and villages” ap- proved April 25th, 1889, or to any pro- vision of any law of Illinois relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors or creat- ing or defining criminal offenses or relat- ing to the prosecution and punishment thereof, nor shall any amendment or addition be made to the charter of the City of Chicago, except by the General Assembly, by which this section, or any part thereof shall, directly or indirectly, be abrogated, repealed or annulled. BY. MR. SHEPARD: Resolved, That in any act providing for the formation and disbursement of the police pension fund the following provision be incorporated: That the members of the police de- partment to be included in the bene- fits of such pension fund shall be as follows: The General Superintendent of Po- lice, Assistant General Superintendent of Police, Inspectors, Captains, Lieu- tenants, Sergeants, Patrolmen, Patrol Drivers, Superintendent of Horses, Su- perintendent of Construction, Superin- | tendent Bureau of Identification, As- | sistant Superintendent Bureau of Iden- tification, Secretary of the Police De- partment, Private Secretary to the Gen- eral Superintendent of Police, Police Custodian Stolen Property, Chief Clerk ^Secretary’s office, Clerk in Secretary’s office, Chief Clerk in Detective Bu- reau, Chief Operator, Assistant Chief Operator, Operators, Drillmaster, Chief Matron, Matrons, Feed Inspector, De- partment Printer, Vehicle Inspectors, Photographer, Assistant Photographer, Stenographers, Supply Drivers, Finger Print Expert a'nd such other mem- bers as may hereafter be provided for by ordinance. December 15 396 1906 BY MR. BENNETT: Resolved, that the present laws re- lating to firemen’s pensions be retained and included in the charter. BY MESSRS WERNO AND ROSEN- THAL: Chapter 7, section 1, alternative 1. In addition to all the legislative powers now conferred upon it by the general cities and villages act and the amendments thereof, the charter shall vest in the city council the power to regulate the legal observance of the weekly day of rest, commonly called Sunday; and the sale of liquors by bona fide athletic, charitable, edu- cational, fraternal, musical and social associations, corporations and societies at social gatherings, or entertainments conducted or held by them only; and in general all powers of local legisla- tion which may under the constitution be vested in a municipality. BY MR. BROWN: Permission shall not be given to any person to retail any goods, fruit or vegetables from a wagon or other vehiel**. BY MR. SNOW: Amend proposition 1, Section 16, Pub- lic Utilities, by striking out all after the word ‘‘city” in line 11, and insert- ing in lieu thereof the following: “also to docks and wharves. ’ ’ BY MR. SNOW: Amend proposition 1, Section 16, Pub- lic Utilities, by adding the following* Provided that the city shall keep sep- arate accounts for each public utility, and that the income from each service shall be used solely for the benefit of that utility exactly as though it were an independent business enterprise; and whenever the income from any utility shall exceed the reasonable needs of that service, including all proper and reasonable sinking funds, the price of or charge for the service rendered or com- modity furnished by such utility shall be lowered, to the end that the patrons of such utility shall directly secure the greatest benefit of the city’s ownership thereof; and no such utility shall be so operated as to render its charge for ser- vice an indirect form of taxation. BY MR. TAYLOR: A permanent educational commission of advisory capacity shall be appointed by the mayor with the approval of the council, to consist of seventeen mem- bers, who shall serve without compensa- tion, including the superintendent of the public schools and the librarian of the public library, who shall be mem- bers ex officio. Each other member shall hold office until another person is ap- pointed to succeed him. It shall be the function of the educa- tional commission to tender advice and recommendations regarding the public school system of the city to correlate the educational forces of the city and to prevent unnecessary duplication of ac- tivities by exercising their influence to- word co-ordinating the various educa- tional and scientific institutions of the city. December 15 39 7 1906 SPECIAL ORDERS SECTION X. — Revenue, at page 53. (Tuesday, December 18, at 7:30 o'clock p. m. SECTION XV. — Streets and Public Places, at page 54. (Tuesday, December 18, at 7:30 o'clock p. m.) SECTION XVII. — Education, at page 56. (Thursday, December 20, at 7:30 o'clock p. m.) PARAGRAPH 3. — Suffrage, at page 52. (To be taken up immediately after the disposition of the subject of Education.) CORRECTIONS. MR. SHANAHAN: On page 92, first column: Line 13, insert word ‘ 1 speak ’ ’ instead of ‘ ‘ come. ' ’ MR. SHANAHAN: On page 101, second column: Line 22, after the word * ‘ then ' ’ add ‘ ‘ who shall. ’ ' MR. SHEDD: On page 128, first column, second line, strike out “in a'' and insert therefor: “eliminating the.’’ Also, in the third line, after the word “paper,’’ insert “but retaining the par- ty column. ’ ’ MR. POST: On page 130, second column, fifth line from bottom, sub- stitute the word “constitutional’’ for the word “satisfactory.” MR. SHEPARD: On page 134, first column, last paragraph, fifth line, strike out “that is, that all municipal officers and city officers, including the municipal court judges shall be elected in the spring” and insert therefor: “that is, that all city officers shall be elected in the spring at one and the same election, except the municipal court judges.” MR. SHANAHAN : On page 159, first column, next to last line, strike out “it along” and insert “about its passage.” MR. WERNO: On page 161, left j hand column, line 25, strike out the word “has” and insert in lieu thereof I the word “have.” Also on page 161, right hand column, 13th line, strike out the words “to give” and insert in lieu thereof the words “who gives.” MR. LINEHAN: On page 162, first column, next to last line, strike out word “devoted” and insert “di- vorced.” Also same column, last line, strike out word “to” and insert “from.” Also, same page, second col- umn, first line, strike out “we are pro- posing” and insert “a proposal.” MR. POWERS: On page 166, sec- ond column, fourth, fifth and sixth lines, strike out “Well, can’t he do that without the consent of this Conven- tion?” and insert in lieu thereof “He cannot do that without the consent of this Convention.” MR, SHANAHAN: On page 170, first column, fourth line, after the word “entrance” insert the following: “to the service protected by the law.” MR. PENDARVIS: Page 179, first column; strike out entire line, and in- sert in lieu thereof: “that fact we December 15 398 1906 put into the,” also, same page, same column, in fourth line from bottom, insert the word “meet” for “leave.” ME. EEYELL: Page 179, about cen- ter of the last column, strike our the four last words. ME. EEYELL: Page 181, strike out the sentence or paragraph commencing with “It seems to me if the duty” and ending with “that will at least let them out of it,” and insert the following: “It seems to me that as between an appointment by the judge of the Mu- nicipal Court and an appointment by the Chief Justice of that court, which latter might be influenced by the County Cen- tral Committee— as suggested by Aider- man Eaymer — the latter would be pre- ferable, as it would eliminate the other twenty-seven or twenty-eight judges of the Municipal Court from political in- fluence. It is doubtful, however, if the Chief Justice could be influenced by anybody or anyone toward the appoint- ment of an incompetent man.” ME. YOPICKA: Page 214, second column, twelfth line of paragraph, strike out words “a movement” and insert “an improvement.” ME. PENDAEYIS: Page 226, second column, line 24, change the word “po- sition” to “provision”; also, same page, same column, line 26, change the word “of” to “by.” ME. YOPICKA: On page 226, sec- ond column, correct as follows: “Mr. Chairman. — If Mr. Eosenthal will change his amendment to read $3,500 minimum and $5,000 maximum, you will get men of more intelligence tb seek the office; make it a minimum salary of $3,500 and a maximum of $5,000, and not more than that.” ME. LINEHAN: I would like to have inserted in the records at page 253, column 2, anywhere there, the fol- lowing paragraph, which was a part of Mr. Fisher's speech, and was left out wholly, as follows: “ * * * Lmehan, to speak plainly, is in sympathy with the present mayor, for this reason. He is willing that the term of office of the mayor should be four years, but objects to the aldermanic term being lengthened. I ask him if he would be of the same mind if he were opposed to the mayor, but was in sympathy with the city coun- cil, which had to seek re-election every two years.” ME. FISHEE: I must object to the insertion of this language as being my exact language; that is not exactly what I stated. I think it does fairly state the sense of what was stated, but the remark which I made was that Mr. Line- han was in favor of the policies of the present mayor. I don't know whether he is in favor of the present mayor or opposed to the present mayor, but I do understand that he is in favor of the policies of the present mayor. ME. PENDAEYIS: On page 257, second column, line 3, insert the word “to” in place of “on.” ME. DEVEE: On page 299, first col- umn, fifth line of the remarks, omit the word 1 1 not. ’ ’ Also, after the word * 1 certain, ' ’ add ‘ 1 general state. ' ' December 15 1906 399 RESOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO AMENDMENT OF STATE CONSTITUTION Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Illinois, the Senate concurring there: in That there shall be submitted to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection at the next election of members of the General Assem- bly, a proposition to amend the Constitution of this State as follows: Resolved, That Article IV of the Constitution of this State be amended by ading thereto a section to be numbered and known as Section 34, and reading as follows, to-wit: Section 34. The General Assembly shall have power, subject to the condi- tions and limitations hereinafter contained to pass any law (local, special or general) providing a scheme or charter of local municipal government for the, territory now or hereafter embraced within the limits of the City of Chicago. The law or laws so passed may provide for consolidating (in whole or in part) in the municipal government of the City of Chicago, the powers now vested in the city, board of education, townishp, park and other local governments and authorities having jurisdiction confined to or within said territory, or any part thereof, and for the assumption by the City of Chicago of the debts and liabilities (in whole or in part) of the governments or corporate authorities whose functions within its territory shall be vested in said City of Chicago and may; authorize said city in the event of its becoming liable for the indebtedness of two or more of the existing municipal corporations lying wholly within said City of Chicago, to become indebted to an amount (including its existing indebtedness* and the indebtedness of all municipal corporations lying wholly within the limits of said city, and said city’s proportionate share of the indebtedness of said county and sanitary district which share shall be determined in such manner as the General Assembly shall prescribe) in its aggregate not exceeding five per centum of the full value of the taxable property within its limits as ascertained by the last assessment either for State or municipal purposes previous to the incurring of such indebtedness (but no new bonded indebtedness, other than for refunding purposes, shall be incurred until the proposition therefor shall be consented to by a majority of the legal voters of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special) ; and may provide for the assessment of property and the levy and collection of taxes within said city for corporate purposes in accordance with the principles of equality and uniformity prescribed by this Constitution; and may abolish all offices, the functions of which shall be otherwise provided for; and may provide for the annexation of territory to or disconnection of territory from said City of Chicago by the consent of a majority of the legal voters (voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special) of the said city and of a majority of the voters of such territory, voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special, and in case the General Assembly shall create municipal courts in the City of Chicago it may abolish the offices of Justices of the Peace, Police Magistrates and Constables in and for the territory within said city and may limit .the jursidiction of Justices of the Peace in the territory of said County of Cook outside of said city to that territory, and in such case the jurisdiction and practice of said municipal courts shall be such as the General Assembly shall prescribe; and the December 15 400 1906 General Assembly may pass all laws which it may deem requisite to effectually provide a complete system of local municipal government in and for the City of Chicago. No law based upon this amendment to the Constitution, affecting the municipal government of the City of Chicago, shall take effect until such law shall be con- sented to by a majority of the legal voters of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special; and no local or special law based upon this amendment affecting specially any part of the City of Chicago shall take effect until consented to by a majority of the legal voters of such part of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special. Nothing in this section contained shall be construed to repeal, amend or affect Section Four (4) of Article XI of the Constitution of this State. Adopted by the House, April 22, 1903. Concurred in by the Senate, April 22, 1903. PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1906 (Clftragii (Hljartn: (EomirntUiu Convened, December 12, 1908 Headquarters 171 WASHINGTON STREET TELEPHONE MAIN 4877 Milton J. Foreman. ... Chairma Alexander H. Revell, . Vice-Cmairma M. L. McHinlev Secretar Henry Barrett Chamberlin. Asst. Sec December 17 403 1906 PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Regular Meeting, Monday, December 17, 1906 2:00 O’clock P. M., in the City Council Chamber OFFICIAL RECORD Published by authority of the Chicago Charter Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: The Convent! i ' . will be in order. The Secretary will I 0 call the roll. ; ’ Present — Foreman, Chairman, and I "Badenoch, Baker, Beebe, Beilfuss, Ben- nett, Brosseau, Brown, Burke, Carey, Church, Cole, Crilly, Cruice, Dever, Dix- on, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., I Eidmann, Erickson, Hill, Hoyne, Hun- ter, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, Lund- berg, MacMillan, McGoorty, McKinley, Merriam, O’Donnell, Oehne, Owens, Pendarvis, Powers, Rainey, Raymer, Revell, Robins, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Snow, Sunny, Swift, Taylor, Thompson, Vopicka, Werno, White, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 55. Absent — C'lettenberg, Dixon, T. .T., Fisher, Fitzpatrick, Gansbergen, Gra- ham, Guerin, Haas, Harrison, Jones, McCormick, Paullin, Patterson, Post, Rinakcr, Sethness, Smulski, Walker, i Wilson — 19. THE CHAIRMAN: Quorum present. MR. TAYLOR: To facilitate the dis- cussion, Mr. Chairman, on Section 18, on public education, I offer a third alterna- tive on my own responsibility, and not as chairman of this committee. It is framed in deference to those who desire a briefer and less detailed statement than the full report of the committee as printed in the proceedings of October 3d, and for those who would not sacri- fice administrative efficiency in the man- agement of our school affairs. THE CHAIRMAN: The alternative will be printed and will be taken up when Section 18 is up for discussion. Are there any corrections to the min- utes? If not, they will stand ap- proved. MR. LATHROP: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask to have a motion printed in reference to the question of public utilities. I wish to offer this as an amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: Under the rules this will be printed and will be taken up at some future time. It will be printed. December 17 404 1906 At the close of the last meeting the Convention was discussing a motion to substitute alternative to No. 2 for Nos. 1 and 2, to Section 21, entitled “ Ini- tiative and Referendum/ ’ and the last motion that was adopted was by a vote of 21 to 20 to substitute for the figures ‘ ‘ 25 ’ ’ the figures “ 15. ’ ’ Mr. Rosenthal introduced another resolution making a second change from 15 to 20 per cent. Am I correct? MR. ROSENTHAL: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: And it is that resolution which is now before the house. MR. PENDARVIS: Mr. Chairman, before you proceed to call up that mat- ter, I would like to ask for a correction. I notice in the vote taken on the mo- tion to adjourn Saturday afternoon I do not appear to be recorded as having voted, as shown by the printed pro- ceedings. I voted “No” on that mo- tion. This is at page 384. THE CHAIRMAN: Will you send your correction to the Secretary, and the proper correction will be made in the minutes, showing that you voted. The question is upon Mr. Rosenthal’s resolution. Is that correctly stated? THE SECRETARY: No; the 25 per cent, was inserted in the vote. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary advised me that I am mistaken. The 25 per cent, was carried by a vote of 21 to 20. MR. SNOW: The Secretary is mis- taken on that point. THE CHAIRMAN: Sir? MR. SNOW: The Secretary is mis- taken on that point. The vote was taken on the substitute offered by Mr. McGoorty, if I recall correctly, which fixed 15 per cent., and that THE CHAIRMAN: Was defeated. MR. SNOW : And that substitute was defeated. THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct. MR. SNOW: The matter now stands on the original motion for 25 per cent., to which Mr. Rosenthal has offered as a substitute that it be fixed at 20 per cent. Now, I move the adoption of the substitute as offered by Mr. Rosenthal. THE CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen you have heard the motion. The motion is to strike out the figures 11 25 ” and in- sert in lieu thereof the figures “20.” DR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I was not present at the last meeting. I do not know, of course, the temper of the Convention in regard to that matter, but I should be very glad indeed, un- less everyone has already made up his mind, to hear at least a limited discus- sion on the comparative value of the 25 per cent, or the 20 per cent. I very frankly say that for myself I believe 15 per cent, is plenty large enough, if the referendum is to mean anything. I shall vote against the 20 per cent, because I am personally in favor of a smaller percentage. Twenty per cent., I take it, would mean a gath- ering of something like 80,000 names un- der our ordinary registration of voting. It is a tremendous task in itself, and, in my judgment, is absolutely unfair to the principle involved. If the refer- endum is to mean anything in the affairs of Chicago in the future, the percentage must be placed at such a minimum that it becomes a workable feature in our government. Otherwise, it is prohibitive, and by putting the percentage so high, it becomes so high as to make it impracticable to work, and we find ourselves in the same po- sition as though we had no referendum. I am opposed to anything above 15 per cent. MR. LINEHAN: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that, viewed from any stand- point, the 25 per cent, or the 20 per cent, will be prohibitive. It is not a referendum. When it comes to the col- lection of over 50,000 names, it becomes a pretty hard proposition. My reasons for believing that are these, and I be- lieve that everybody approaches this December 17 405 1906 subject in this Convention with a de- , sire to do what they think is best. There are now in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 60,000 independent votes in this city. The past history of elections proves that fact. There were in the neighborhood of 40,000 to 50,000 cast for Harlan for mayor. There were in the neighborhood of 40,000 to 50,000 votes" cast for Altgeld for mayor. There were in the neighborhood of 40,000 to 50.000 cast for Gray for sheriff. This city has been carried by a Republican mayor by a majority or a plurality of about 40,000 to 50,000, and it has been carried by a Democratic mayor by a plurality of about 40,000 to 50,000. Now, I only offer this from this standpoint, that there is in this city a floating vote which you cannot beg, borrow or steal — understand, you can- not beg, borrow or steal, from a polit- ical standpoint. They are voting for what they think is right, an independ- ent vote, but when you put on a pro- hibitive referendum you are barring that independent vote which is the bul- wark of progress as far as this city is concerned. When you have a referen- dum under which it is possible to utilize that independent vote to the amount of 40.000 or 50,000, you are leaving an opportunity for getting a matter con- sidered by the voters. When you make it above that, you are making it a hardship to the voters to have any mat- ter considered which is taken up by this council. Now, let me say further, that this city is not always going to have the same kind of a Common Council that it has to-day, and just think of the danger that would exist by a 20 per cent, ref- erendum or a 25 per cent, referendum. Supposing, in the usual state of affairs, that this council was overturned and the radical element got possession of this council, and they proposed to initiate legislation — understand, legislation that would be inimical to some of the best interests, as you might call them, — real estate, or anything else, — of this city. Suppose they proposed to do that, and when you opposed it, they said: “Go out and get a 25 per cent, petition. * * Where would you get it? I tell you that the 25 per cent, petition which was gotten up in this city, which rep- resented in the neighborhood of 1,000 votes, could never have been gotten up in this city if it was not for the agency of the newspapers, and you know it, — if it had not been for the Hearst news- papers taking up the petition matter and giving the people an opportunity, acting as an agency, it would have been an utter impossibility to get up a pe- tition that represented 25 per cent, of the voters of this city. Now, that is so, and, acting from a square, honest position on this question, what is the use in creating a hardship so that some day when the affairs might turn around it would create an injury? Mr. Fisher made a statement here the other day showing where there was a street section on the north side that he thought possibly some day it would be necessary to introduce the street cars there, to North avenue, from Division, so that it would complete the street car system, as it ought to be done. Now, the property owners in that neighbor- hood are opposed to that proceeding. Supposing the radical element of this city were in possession of the council, and they said, “We will do that . n What opportunity would the property owners and the people in that neighbor- hood have under the 25 per cent, to pro- tect themselves from that innovation? I tell you, gentlemen, there has never been a rule that was ever made that is a hardship for one party that eventually does not become a hardship on the other one; and the only way to tackle the question is from an honest stand- point, one which is fair and right and honest, and give everybody a free hand. December 17 406 1906 Now, I have thought over this thing since Saturday night; I wanted this thing laid over so that we would have an opportunity to have a free-for-all vote on it; I accept my medicine when I am voted down, but I would like to have the vote of everybody here in this matter. Now, since that time the Chi- cago Federation of Labor has taken it up, and they have taken the stand that the lowest possible referendum that you can have is the most honest and best for the whole community. If there is no communication here from them, I consider it my duty to move THE CHAIRMAN: It arrived this minute. MR. LINEHAN : That means the substitution of 5 per cent, as an amend- ment. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the communication which has just been received. The Secretary read the following communication : Headquarters Chicago Federation of Labor. Chicago, Dec. 17, 1906. Hon. Milton J. Foreman, Chairman of the Chicago Charter Convention, Council Chamber, Chicago. Dear Sir: — The Chicago Federation of Labor at its meeting, December 16th, instructed its legislative committee to notify the Charter Convention that it demands that the Chicago charter con- tain a provision in accordance with the expressed will of the people as recorded in their vote on the Little Ballot at the elections of November 8, 1902, and No- vember 8, 1904, and at which elections the following propositions were carried by the following vote: Vote at election of 1904: For In Chicago. Against . . For In the State. Against . On the following proposition: “ Shall the State Legislature pass a law enabling the voters of any county, city, village or township, by a majority vote, to veto any undesirable action of their respective law-making bodies (ex- cepting emergency measures) when- ever 5 per cent, of the voters petition to have such action referred to popu- lar vote? This law to apply only to such localities as may adopt the same.” Vote at election of 1902: In Chicago. For 159,696 Against ’ 24,466 In the State. For 390,972 Against 83,377 On the following proposition: ‘ 1 Shall the next general assembly enact a statute by which the voters of any political sub-division of the State of Illinois may be able to initiate de- sired legislation by filing a petition therefor signed by 8 per cent, of the legal voters in said political sub-division and to have referred to the voters any legislation enacted by the several local legislative bodies, by the filing of a pe- tition therefor of 5 per cent, of the legal voters of any such political sub-division, the action of a majority of those voting to decide in each case?” The Chicago Federation of Labor, at its meeting December 2d, also adopted the following resolution: “ Resolved, That we reiterate our de- mands for a home rule charter for Chi- cago, to be framed by the elected rep- resentatives of the people of Chicago, subject to the referendum vote and with power in the people to amend said charter on their own initiative.” Respectfully submitted, B. C. DILLON, Chairman, WM. M. ROSSELL, Sec’y, MARGARET A. HALEY, LELAND P. SMITH, Legislative Committee of the Chicago Federation of Labor. December 17 407 1906 ME. COLE : Mr. Chairman, I listened to the arguments on Saturday afternoon with a great deal of interest, and was sorry I was obliged to go away before the vote was taken. I believe in a low rate. I was in favor of 10 per cent., and if I had been here I should have voted for 15 per cent. I had to go away, and through the courtesy of Mr^_ MR. SHEPARD: I rise to a point of Young we agreed topair* — The matter u^der, Mr. Chairman. The question of -\yatf discussed fairly and as thoroughly as possible, and a majority of one is as 'sacred to me as a majority of fifteen pV twenty, nr J^very- ^erfie in this Convention is trying to do what he thinks is right, and when there is a majority I think that should be conclusive. I will now be in favor of the 20 per cent, and hope it will go to a vote on that issue. MR. ROBINS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: What is your point of order? MR. ROBINS: When the vote was taken on the 25 per cent, the resolution for 20 per cent, was voted down at that time. Therefore, the only matter be- fore the Convention would be consider- ation of the vote by which 25 was agreed upon as the per cent, by this Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not understand that the 20 per cent, proposition was before the house. When the matter was discussed it was 15 or 25. Therefore, the Chair can see no parliamentary reason why the figures 25 should not be amended to 20. MR. LINEHAN: I offered 5 per cent, just before I sat down, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you desire to amend Mr. Rosenthal’s proposition? MR. LINEHAN: I do not know if I am in proper shape for that. I want to get a vote on 5 per cent. I don’t care whether it amends Mr. Rosenthal’s amendment or any other way, or Aider- man Snow’s amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: They are both the same motion. Mr. Snow has sec- onded Mr. Rosenthal’s motion, as I un- derstand. MR. LINEHAN: Then I offer an amendment that it be made 5 per cent. THE CHAIRMAN: On that a vote will be taken. MR. SNOW : Question. 15 per cent, is a substitute for the mo- tion to make it 25 per cent.; that was considered and voted upon Saturday on the theory that that was the low figure to be considered. My point of order is, as the figures of 15 was the lowest you cannot go lower than 15 at this time. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will rule that in the matter that has been decided by only one vote to amend that it is open to all amendments. The point of order is not well taken. MR. YOUNG: A point of order. I think we have an amendment to this original section offered by this commit- tee, and we have an amendment to that amendment. I want to inquire how many more amendments can be offered in this case? THE CHAIRMAN: There is the original matter before the house on the record as it now stands of 25 per cent., and a motion MR. RAYMER: That is an amend- ment itself. THE CHAIRMAN: It ceased to be an amendment when it was adopted; it became a part of the entire matter — the general matter. MR. SNOW: I want to raise the question that the 25 per cent, has not been voted upon. It has not been adopted. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would suggest that the simplest way to get out of this is by the method of having a vote upon it. MR. SNOW : That is what I want to bring, about. The simplest thing is to bring about a vote on the amendment December 17 408 1906 of 5 per cent. That is the proper thing to do. MR. ROSENTHAL: A point of or- der. A vote was had on 15 per cent., and that was voted down. Now, it is fair to suppose that having voted down 15 per cent, the members of this Con- vention would not consider 5 per cent, because if 5 per cent, is voted down we might next consider 6 per cent., etc. It seems to me the higher number, rather than the lower number, would be proper. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair can- not but understand that when a matter is opened up for one amendment it is opened up for all amendments. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor of Mr. Linehan’s motion signify by saying aye. (Cries of “Roll call.”) THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll upon the 5 per cent. Yeas — Burke, Carey, Cruice, Linehan, McGoorty, Owens, Rainey, Robins, White, Zimmer — 10. Nays — Beebe, Beilfuss, Bennett, Bros- seau, Brown, Church, Cole, Crilly, Dix- on, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eidmann, Erickson, Hill, Hoyne, Hunter, Kittle- man, Lathrop, Lundberg, MacMillan, McKinley, Merriam, Pendarvis, Pow- ers, Raymer, Revell, Rosenthal, Shana- han, Shedd, Shepard, Snow, Sunny, Swift, Taylor, Vopicka, Young — 36. (During roll call.) MR. BEILFUSS: What is Mr. Line- han ’s motion? THE CHAIRMAN: To make the ref- erendum percentage 5 per cent. MR. BEILFUSS: I regret very much that I was unable to be present here Saturday. It strikes me we are going from one extreme to another. What we should have adopted in this matter is a sound and sane middle course. Twenty-five per cent, is in my estima- tion, almost prohibitive, and 5 per cent., it strikes me, is too low. I cannot vote for that. I should like to vote for an amendment of 15 per cent., and if it is still in time to be offered, that is the kind of an amendment we should have. I am obliged to vote against 5 per cent., but also should be against 25 per cent. Fifteen per cent, strikes me as a sane solution of this question. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon Mr. Line- han ’s motion the yeas are 10 and the nays 36. The motion is lost, and the Secretary will call the roll upon MR. ROBINS: I now wish to move a reconsideration by which the vote of 15 per cent, was defeated. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion. MR. ROSENTHAL: A point of or- der. There is a motion now before the house. There cannot be a reconsidera- tion of his motion while the present mo- tion is pending. THE CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. MR. ZIMMER: Then I will move that 15 per cent, be substituted for 20 per cent. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is out of order, the consideration of the same question having been voted down. MR. ZIMMER: Only of the ques- tion, Mr. Chairman. MR. ZIMMER : I do not understand that 15 per cent, can be out of order, in view of the fact that the other motion was voted down, because it was a sub- stitute for the 25 per cent. This time it is for 20 per cent. THE CHAIRMAN: A direct vote that was had at the last meeting up- on the question whether 15 per cent, should or should not be substituted for 25 per cent. MR. ZIMMER : Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: This motion of Alderman Zimmer’s is an exact dupli- cate of that motion, which was voted down and therefore out of order, — it is therefore out of order. MR. MacMILLAN: Mr. Chairman. December 17 409 1906 ME. ZIMMEE: Do I still have the floor? I would like to make it 14 per cent., a substitute for the other. THE CHAIEMAN: The Chair would suggest that a vote be had on this ques- tion. ME. EOBINS: As a matter of in- formation, will the Chair please state whether if 20 per cent, is voted for that it will be possible to get a recon- sideration on 15 per cent.? THE CHAIEMAN: There will be an opportunity to have a vote upon a motion to reconsider. ME. EOBINS: Thank you; that is what I wanted to know. THE CHAIEMAN: The Chair sim- ply desires to clear the record. ME. MacMILLAN: Mr. Chairman, in order to help this matter along, I move that the percentage be 16 per cent. THE CHAIEMAN: How much? ME. MacMILLAN: Sixteen per cent. THE CHAIEMAN: There was an amendment, and an amendment to that amendment, and an amendment to the amendment to the amendment to the amendment. Now, the first amendment being voted down, the second amend- ment will now be put, and no further amendments will be offered until we dispose of the present amendments. ME. EOSENTHAL: What is the amendment? THE CHAIEMAN: The amendment now is your amendment. ME. McGOOETY : Mr. Chairman, I understand Alderman Zimmer has of- fered an amendment to Mr. Eosenthal’s amendment, and I rise for the purpose of seconding the amendment of Aider- man Zimmer. THE CHAIEMAN: The Chair can- not help but thinking that the quickest and best way is to have a vote on one or the other proposition; it is eventual- ly possible to vote one or the other down, and the Chair does not want to be compelled to rule motions out of order, to rule amendments out of order which are purely for the purpose of evading the ruling of the Chair. ME. EOBINS: I have the same ob- jection to 20 per cent, in not quite the same degree that I have given to 25 per cent. Now, I thought that the placing of 25 per cent, was prohibitive and was intended to be prohibitive up- on the exercise of this so-called referen- dum right. When the act of the legis- lature known as the “ Public Policy Law” was adopted, it was stated on the floor of the Convention, amid laughs, that 25 per cent, was a joke. One of the representatives of the legis- lature of Illinois said that the passage of the act, in speaking of it person- ally to me, was a joke. The actual pro- vision of the original law was stricken from the law and 25 per cent, inserted as a means of making it wholly prohibi- tive. Now, Mr. Chairman, a referendum league was organized in the State of Illinois for the purpose of using that very pivotable pride and giving expres- sion to public opinion upon great ques- tions of public concern, and a number of referendums have been held on the basis of 25 per cent., permissive of a statement of public opinion upon ques- tions of public policy. A certain amount of popular education has resulted; but there is no necessity for the 25 per cent. Let me state what the objection is that confronts us on this matter. The difficulty of getting 25 per cent, of the registered voters of the city makes it a real object for somebody, or some person, or some corporation, or some newspaper, to take up a problem — a question to take up a me*asure that shall meet with public approval and turn it into partisan machinery. Now, if you have a reasonably fair number of voters, there will be no great object in anybody trying to exploit it as a mere popular machine, but when you make a measure difficult of exercising it, you put a premium upon some group, or newspaper, if you please, taking up December 17 410 1906 that cause, and assuming a great amount of public service, in succeeding in getting a referendum for the people. Now, how foolish would be your ac- tion in that matter. How much power and strength do you give for purposes that may be against the public inter- ests by just that policy if you allow that referendum in a simple and fair way, safeguarding every actual signa- ture so that they will be real signa- tures, then you will have put the only safeguard that it needs upon it. If you make the per cent. 25, you do not make it prohibitive actually; you make it prohibitive as a matter of general or more or less individual public action; but you make it entirely possible for some particular question in the com- munity to be taken up, and a great deal of credit is claimed before the people, because they have been able to get a public expression of opinion in that pub- lic manner. Now, it seems to me that the wise and conservative men in this room act un- wisely when they do not consent to ten or fifteen — 15 per cent., which seems to me to be wise in this situation. I hope the 20 per cent, will be voted down. ME. REYELL: May I ask a ques- tion? Don't you think that the news- papers will take up the matter whether it is 15 or whether it is 25? MR. ROBINS: I think they may, but I think the amount of credit they will claim for doing it will be lessened. There will be no particular object in doing it, if the people who are really interested in legislation on public affairs will take it up; then nobody could claim any glory for taking it up. At the present time and in the past there has been made great claims of service to the public by 11 friends to the people," by taking up really difficult questions and forcing them through. How diffi- cult it is to get 25 per cent, of the registered voters’ consent to an object only those people who have actually done that work can bear testimony that is of any value in this Convention. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we have a pretty clear principle presented to us here. In other words, the question is here, whether we should sustain this idea of legislation directly by the people, or whether we should keep, as we have had heretofore, the principle of legislative government. When the constitution was formed and adopted in this country, this country be- came committed to the principle of rep- resentative government. That matter was carefully considered by the framers of tfie constitution ; that matter was carefully considered by all the people of that time. The constitution, and the methods of election in different coun- tries were studied, and it was concluded that that was the only sane form of gov- ernment to adopt. Now, for years we have had this prin- ciple of representative government, and simply because we have had poor legis- lation at times; simply because at times the will of the people has been thwarted, people want to extend this idea of refer- endum and initiative and everything of that sort. Now, I say it is experimental in this country, and we are going to find that it will not work. We are going to find that if we extend this principle of referendum we will subject ourselves to a greater tyranny than we already have, or that we imagine we have. What is the result of it so far? Don’t we know now that when the legislature tacks onto a provision that ‘ 1 This shall be submitted to the people," that the legislature itself is often shifting respons- ibility? Why, every one who has gone down to the legislature to have a cer- tain act passed, or to oppose the enact- ment of a certain law, has been met with this proposition : 1 Why, we will tack onto this law a little section by which it shall be submitted to a vote of the people," and then, after all, the people are to pass on this matter. December 17 411 1906 Now, the result of this has been, time and again, that the legislature has shift- ed the responsibility properly upon its shoulders under our form of government, upon people who are not prepared to discuss the question, and who are not prepared to vote upon the question in the manner that the legislature, or mem- bers of the legislature are. Why, you might just as well say that these men who have sat day after day in the dis- cussion and consideration of particular problems, are not any more familiar with them than a person who passes on them for the first time, as many persons do when they enter the polling booth. I think it is a mistake — a great mis- take — if we extend at this time this prin- ciple of referendum. I think it is a great mistake. Instead of electing the right sort of men for our legislative as- semblies, to our City Councils, and places of this sort, it is a great mistake to simply say, 1 1 Here, we will have re- dress at the polls if anything goes wrong ; * 1 and as a result of that, you will simply get inefficient men into your council, instead of having strong men who are put there for the purpose of considering questions, and who are there for the purpose of properly deciding them. I think that we ought not, by our votes here today to extend a principle which, to my notion is really foreign to our institutions. MR. DEVER : I would like to say one word on this question. THE CHAIRMAN : What is the ques- tion? MR. DEVER: I would like to speak on this question before the house. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dever. MR. DEVER: It seems to me that we have lost sight of what, in my judg- ment, is the most important point that has been made here with reference to this referendum discussion, and that is the educational value of a referendum to the whole people. I do not agree with Mr. Rosenthal that in all instances the people are less capable of passing on great public questions than the various legislatures. I think the experience of the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois during the last ten years, will abundantly prove that in many instances he may be mistaken. However, in my own personal experience, in connection with referendum votes, I find that the educational value of the referendum was of more consequence in most cases than the subject being dis- cussed at the time the referendum was being taken. To find out the great pub- lic interest, the interest that the public takes in great public questions, is an im- portant thing. For instance, the traction question. We have had three or four different ref- erendums on that question, and the edu- cational value of the great discussion among the public, of the financial feat- ures of that great matter, was a better school for the voters, and it has done very much more for them than any work any legislative body has ever done for the people. It seems to me that is the most impor- tant consideration in connection with the discussion of the referendum idea, that is, if you can arrange it so that the re- sponsibility for good or bad laws can be brought home directly to the voter himself, you will make it to his in- terest, and he will study those questions which ought to have the interest of all good citizens. Then there is another question — MR. ROSENTHAL: Let me ask you a question: Supposing the City Coun- cil should pass a vicious traction grant or ordinance; don’t you think that they could get 20 per cent, of the people to petition by referendum? MR. DEVER: I think that is pos- sible, and that it is possible is borne out by the fact that when the council did attempt to pass certain ordinances that the majority of the people thought December 17 412 1906 were vicious — I don’t want it to be un- derstood that I think so, but the people thought they were vicious, at the ex- pense of a great deal of money and a rather perfect organization, we were en- abled to get a 25 per cent, petition. But the point I wish to make, in closing, is this: That where a man does not believe in a referendum at all, he ought to vote against 20 per cent, or 25 per cent, or any other per cent., if he is opposed to the referendum idea. But if a man is in favor of the referendum idea, if he thinks it is a good thing, and if he thinks it will assist to give good, wholesome local self-government in this city, then he ought to make that refer- endum just as simple and as easy as pos- sible, having in mind at all times the importance of the subjects which per- haps may be made the subject of the referendum, and for that reason, it seems to me, if I were opposed to a refer- endum, I would not vote for 25 per cent, or 15 per cent. I would vote against the referendum idea. If I favored a refer- endum vote, I would favor a referendum that would mean a referendum, and I would make it reasonably easy and con- venient for the people to express them- selves on all occasions on all important public questions. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll. The question is on the substitution of 20 per cent, for 25 per cent. Yeas — Baker, Beebe, Bennett, Brown, Church, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eidmann, Erickson, Hill, Hunter, Kittle- man, Lathrop, Lundberg, Pendarvis, Pow- ers, Raymer, Revell, Rosenthal, Shana- han, Shedd, Shepard, Snow, Sunny, Swift, Wilkins, Young — 27. Nays — Beilfuss, Brosseau, Burke, Carey, Cole, Crilly, Cruice, Dever, Eck- hart, J. W., Hill, Hoyne, Linehan, Mac- Millan, McGoorty, McKinley, Merriam, O’Donnell, Oehne, Rainey, Robins, Tay- lor, Yopicka, White, Zimmer — 24. (During roll call.) MR. COLE: Mr. Chairman, I wish to explain my vote. I spoke just now in favor of 20 per cent., in a spirit of com- promise, but inasmuch as a compromise has been entirely lost sight of, and 1 failed in one of my first efforts as a peacemaker, I will go back to my original position, and vote No. THE CHAIRMAN : On the motion to amend by making the figures twenty per eent. instead of twenty-five per cent., the yeas are 27 and the noes 24, and the motion is carried. THE CHAIRMAN: The next ques- tion is upon the pending amendment rela- tive to the last clause. Mr. Beebe moves to amend the clause, ‘ ‘ such ordinance shall not go into effect until and unless at such election it shall have been ap- proved by a majority of the voters voting upon the question. ’ ’ He moves to strike out the words 1 1 voting upon the ques- tion, ’ ’ and insert in lieu thereof, 1 1 vot- ing at such election. ’ ’ MR. O’DONNELL: What page is that? THE SECRETARY : Fifty-seven. MR. McGOORTY : Is the amendment before us? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MR. McGOORTY : If this amendment passes it makes it additionally difficult for people in case of any proposition be submitted. The constitutional amendment of 1904, which has been adopted, provides that any charter constitution may be adopted by a majority voting on that proposition. Now, according to the amendment offered by Mr. Beebe, it re- quires a majority of all the votes cast at that election. It says, in fact, that every person who does not vote on the proposition votes no. I think, Mr. Chair- man, that is specially, under the circum- stances, unfair; if we are duly regard- ful of the fact of how any matter of this kind will be considered by the public outside of this chamber we will stand for twenty per cent. Certainly, the pro- vision as it now reads in the second al- December 17 413 1906 ternative should stand as a majority of those voting upon the question; as pro- vided in Mueller law and as provided in most of legislation of that kind. The only exception, I know of, Mr. Chairman, is one that provides for the outer park belt proposition, and that question, as I understand it, is now pending before the courts as to whether or not that propo- sition was passed. With that exception, that has always been the procedure to vote upon the proposition, and therefore I hope the amendment will be voted down. MR. BEEBE: Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the house I will with- draw that amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: Sir? MR. BEEBE: With the consent of the house I wish to withdraw that amendment. MR. ROSENTHAL : Consented. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there unani- mous consent? (Cries of “Agreed”.) THE CHAIRMAN : The amendment will be allowed to be withdrawn and the Secretary will read the section as amended. MR. SNOW: There is an amendment offered by myself to that section which is not voted upon. THE CHAIRMAN: Where is that? MR. SNOW : “The City Council shall have power to prescribe proper penalties for any forgery or deceit in getting out this petition. ’ ’ THE SECRETARY: Page 394. THE CHAIRMAN: What will you do with this amendment? MR. SNOW : I move its adoption. MR. ROBINS: Whose is this amend- ment? THE CHAIRMAN: This is Aider- man Snow’s amendment. MR. PENDARVIS: May I ask a question ? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MR. PENDARVIS: Can the legis- lature confer power on the City Council to prescribe a penalty for forgery? MR. SNOW : I think they probably can in cases of this kind which refer to a specific act in connection with the city government. I am not an attorney, and I cannot pass on that point, but it strikes me as a matter of common sense, they can. THE CHAIRMAN: I think the gen- eral assembly can permit the City of Chicago to punish any infringement of the law which the legislature has given the right to enact. MR. ROSENTHAL: It strikes me that the proper way to write that law would be to impose the penalty in the law itself, if it is violated, and that can be done. I doubt whether the power can be conferred upon the City Coun- cil. THE CHAIRMAN : What will you do with the amendment? The Convention may take action upon it or it might be considered by a committee — the Law Com- mittee. MR. SNOW: That was what I was thinking. I was going to ask that it be sent to the Law Committee if the Convention sees fit to adopt it. THE CHAIRMAN: Before or after action? MR. SNOW: After action and before it is reported to the committee. THE CHAIRMAN : You have heard the amendment that has been suggested. All those in favor of it say aye; opposed, no; it is so ordered. MR. ECKHART : I desire to offer an amendment, too. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you offer a substitute for the entire matter? MR. ECKHART: No, I offer an amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read it. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. B. A. Eekhart: “Amend ‘alternative to 2,’ third line, after the word ‘alley,’ to read: ‘ or space below as well as above the level of the surface of the streets, alleys and other public places. ’ ’ ’ December 17 414 1906 MR. ECKHART : I move the adoption of that amendment, Mr. Chairman. MR. SNOW : I suppose, Mr. Chair- man, that is intended to cover the ques- tion of subways and tunnels, is it not? MR. ECKHART: Yes, sir. MR. SNOW : It is very proper. It should be adopted. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor of the motion say aye, and those opposed, no. It is carried. The Secretary will now read the section as amended. The entire section as amended will be before the house for its action. MR. DEVER: I wish to offer another amendment. MR. CHAIRMAN : Will you write it out, please? MR. DEVER: I am writing it. MR. McGOORTY : I am also desirous of offering another amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. McGoorty has an amendment. MR. MERRIAM : I offered an amend- ment on Saturday on that. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Secretary, have you the amendment by Mr. Mer- riam? THE SECRETARY: It was never brought to the attention of the Con- vention and it fell into the basket. THE CHAIRMAN: Have you your amendment, Mr. Merriam? MR. MERRIAM: I will write it out. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. McGoorty ’s amendment will be read. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Mc- Goorty: ‘ ‘ Amend alternative to No. 2 by inserting the words 1 any franchise or ’ following the word 1 granting. ’ ’ 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Where is that? MR. McGOORTY : The purpose of the amendment — I will read the clause. It will read as follows: “Alternative to 2: The charter shall provide that any ordi- nance granting any franchise for the use of any street or alley for any public utility,” following the amendment which is adopted as offered by Mr. Eckhart. The idea of that, Mr. Chairman, is that while it is obviously intended by this alternative to provide that in case of using any street or alley is sufficiently comprehensive to include any franchise, that we should make it doubly sure by covering franchises which might be given to the telephone company, for instance, for stringing its wires above the ground, or franchises for some .other purpose which might not in a legal sense be con- sidered the use of any public street or alley. And therefore, the inclusion of the words “any franchise.” MR. SNOW : Mr. Chairman, may I put a question?. MR. McGOORTY : Certainly. MR. SNOW: I would like to ask the gentleman what franchise can be granted that does not include the use of the streets, alleys and public ways. MR. McGOORTY : As I have sug- gested, Mr. Snow, it might be strictly construed in the giving to the telephone company, for instance, the right to use overhead wires, that that might not be the use of a public street or alley, al- though I am inclined to think it would. I do not see what harm could come by having the words ‘ 1 any franchise ’ ’ in there, which is comprehensive, and which would include any grant the City Council or local corporate authorities could make. MR. SNOW : Mr. McGoorty, as a law- yer, knows very well that street or alley runs from the center of the earth to the sky. MR. McGOORTY : I think Mr. Snow will agree with me that there can be no harm in our having the words in there. MR. SNOW: I haven’t any objection to it, but it seems to me it is surplusage. MR. McGOORTY : That may be and yet it may not include those things. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor of its adoption say aye; those op- posed, no. The motion prevailed. It is so ordered. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Merriam, have you an amendment? December 17 415 1906 THE SECRETARY : Amendment by Mr. Merriam : ‘ 1 The City Council shall have the power to provide for a refer- endum on any such ordinance irrespective of such petition. * ’ MR. MERRIAM: Mr. Chairman. MR. SNOW: Question. MR. MERRIAM: That simply means that they will have power if they want to consider a question. MR. SNOW: I desire to second that motion. THE CHAIRMAN: The matter is be- fore the house. MR. DEYER: I would like to have that read again. THE CHAIRMAN : Let the Secretary read again. MR. ROSENTHAL: I think there is a slight — it strikes me there is a slight ambiguity in the proposition as framed, and I have therefore drafted a substi- tute which I would like to have read. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal presents a substitute. MR. SNOW: Another? MR. SHEPARD: Who? THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read Mr. Rosenthal ’s substitute to Mr. Merriam ’s amendment. MR. SHEPARD: Who presented it? THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Rosen- thal: The City Council shall have the power, irrespective of any such peti- tion, to submit any such ordinance to a vote of the people and to require the same to be adopted by a majority vote as aforesaid, before the same shall be- come a law. MR. MERRIAM: I will accept that as a substitute. MR. REVELL: I would just like to know where this amendment is likely to lead us. We will say, for example, that the council has a franchise before it, and the franchise is granted by a majority vote of the council. Opposition is aroused — perhaps good opposition— and the mayor vetoes the grant; then the council proceeds and passes the grant over the mayor’s veto by a two-thirds majority vote; then a majority of the council, not two-thirds, can come in immediately and say, ‘ i This matter must go to a vote of the people. ’ ’ It strikes me, Mr. Chair- man, that you are putting up problems here and propositions to make it abso- lutely impossible for capital to get any chance at any franchise in the City of Chicago. They have to go all through this thing, and either by the council, — a majority of the council, — or a petition of 20 per cent. It goes to an election, and you have decided that a majority of votes cast upon a proposition shall be an approval of the franchise. Now, we all know that a majority of votes passed upon a proposition is different from a majority of votes cast at an elec- tion, so that with all those obstacles to get over from start to finish, (Compara- tively few of the voters of the people of the City of Chicago can stop, perhaps, a very good franchise; because we all know, no matter how good a franchise is, there are a large number of people in the community who oppose it, and they could immediately get a petition by 20 per cent., and when the matter comes be- fore the people at an election, at each election, you shall say a majority of votes cast upon a proposition should re- ject a franchise, and you have a 20 per cent, petition of the voters to go with the rejection, or supporting the rejection, and you can immediately see that you are putting up a game here that will lead the eyes of capital to absolutely keep away from the City of Chicago ; and I am beginning to think that that is just exactly what some of these people want. What we want in Chicago, it seems to me, is to invite capital to come here, to safeguard all the interests of the City of Chicago, so that we can get the good out of it for the City of Chicago, and not to have capital stay away. I tell you, gentlemen, upon a proposition of this kind, when a majority of the council can turn it over to the action of an elec- December 17 416 1906 tion, you are also telling capital to stay out of the City of Chicago. I don’t believe in it. MR. ZIMMER: I am not of the opin- ion that the Charter Convention need worry much about the ability of capital to take care of itself. The great trouble has been for years, and the reason for the referendum in Chicago has been to see that the people get an even break with capital; and I believe that this amendment of Mr. Rosenthal’s — or sub- stitute, rather — is a reasonable provision, for the reason that there are sometimes questions arising in the council which the council passes, which it is not neces- sary to trouble the people by asking them that they go out and provide a peti- tion, but which still might be, as a question of public policy, — might be sub- mitted to the people, and in doing this, passing certain things, and by giving the City Council a right to see that a referendum is provided, you are simply hurrying the matter along instead of de- laying it, and if necessary at a subse- quent election the people could vote on those questions. You can save a great deal of time, and save a great deal of expense and worry of getting up a peti- tion on some questions that should be voted on at the regular election. MR. O ’DONNELL : Is an amendment in order now in the state in which the record now is, in the state it now is, with motions pending, is an amendment in order? THE CHAIRMAN: There is an an amendment before the house, Mr. O ’Donnell. If the amendment which you desire to offer is germane to the amend- ment now under consideration, it is in order. MR. O’DONNELL: I desire to move to strike from the amendment the word ‘ 1 such. ’ ’ THE CHAIRMAN: What word? MR. O ’DONNELL : The word 1 1 such, ’ ’ so that it will not relate back to ordi- nances granting franchises for public util- ities merely, but it will refer back to any ordinances that the City Council at any time may desire to have an expres- sion from the people upon. There are many ordinances that the aldermen of the City Council may desire the expres- sion of the people upon, other than ordi- nances concerning grant of franchises, and if you give the power of the City Council to refer to the people for refer- endum any ordinances regardless of whether it is for a franchise or not, 1 think it would be an excellent thing to do. It is merely referring it to the City Council to determine whether or not they need the advice of their constituents and of the people of the city. You know we are trying to have home rule here, to some extent. Some time or other there may be some power which may try to curtail that home rule, and it may be necessary to get an expression from your people here, so that I think it would be only wise that this Conven- tion should give the aldermen of the City Council the power to go to the people for the consideration on any ordinance that may be passed by the City Council, or that may be under consideration. 1 sincerely trust the amendment will pre- vail, because it will be of great benefit to the people of Chicago. MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me we are not quite consistent, or else we have forgotten some things that have been discussed here before while we are considering this question. The w r hole effort, with regard to referendum, seems to be an effort to shift the responsibility of legislation from the regularly elected representatives, or the members of the Legislature, on to the shoulders of the people. As has already been said, it is a well recognized fact that when a ques- tion comes up on which there is some doubt, and which it is desired to dodge the responsibility of, it is a common j thing to have a referendum, and thereby j shoulder it off on the people. Now, ex- | perience teaches — and I think every man December 17 417 1906 here has had some experience in this di- rection — that the people that vote upon the little ballot as a rule do not pay as much attention to it, or take as much effort to be thoroughly posted on it, as they do upon the candidates ; and yet we have heard it discussed here at great length, that we should reduce the number of names upon the ticket, in order that there might not be any confusion to the voter. Now we come before the Conven- tion with a proposition that the City Council can at any time ask for a refer- endum vote upon a question. Why, Mr. Chairman, we are liable to have a dozen of those little votes, those little tickets, before us; and I have even seen people come into a voting booth — I presume you all have — who have not made up their minds at all upon the question of the little ballots, who ask the first Tom, Dick or Harry they meet, the question : ‘ 1 What are you going to do on this?” And the reply might be: “Why, I am going to vote 1 no ’ on that. ” 11 All right, so will I; let it go at that.” Now, I don ’t think that is a proper thing to do ; when there are members that are elected to the City Council or to the Legislature, when a question comes up of importance, they seek to find out about it, to get all the information they can upon the question — we seek to get all the information we can upon the question from both sides, w T e try to get advice from those that are posted, we try to get them to tell us, from experience in the past, get all the enlightenment we ean upon these matters, we get what books' we can published by the council, and by other means get what information we can on the subject. The individual voter never does that, hardly ever does that ; a very small percentage would do that. You are simply shifting the respon- sibility for great public matters from the legislators to the people, and it is well known that the people have no re- sponsibility on the little ballot; they as- sume no responsibility when they vote on the little ballot. They vote, you may say, almost without thought. I don’t think it is right to shift the responsibility, except on great public matters — matters of great importance, — and I am in favor of the referendum only on those impor- tant matters; but, to put in a position the City Council, or any other legislative body, to send down a dozen or more of those little ballots in that way, T don’t think you are getting an expression from anyone; I think the people who vote on them vote without assuming any respon- sibility. I think it is shifting the re- sponsibility of the legislation improperly down to the people. There is another point that occurs to me which has not been touched upon at all. It has been said that in Switzerland this thing works well, and in many matters brought be- fore us we are pointed to some foreign city or state — London, Berlin, Paris or some country like Switzerland, and they say that it works well there. I venture to say that conditions are en- tirely different here from what they are there. You take a question that comes up before the people of London, for in- stance, as an illustration. There they have a voter who is an Englishman: he is familiar with the language: he is familiar with the form of government; he is familiar with newspaper talk; he knows the whole theory of the govern- ment from his childhood up. It is not so here. Here we have thousands and tens of thousands and hundreds of thou- sands of foreigners coming here from all over, emigrants coming here, and in a comparatively short time they are made into voters, with just as much opportun- ity to vote as you and I have. They are voters before they understand our lan- guage; they are voters before their theory of government which they bring over with them is eliminated, and which prejudices them, perhaps, and which form of government, or which theory of govern- ment, perhaps, has gone down through December 17 418 1906 generations of improper government and of oppression. It is hard to get that out of their minds. Now, by the use of the little ballot, they really become the legislators; they decide those questions of legislation which should be decided by the regularly elected representative on whom the bur- den should rest; and in passing upon these matters they assume no responsi- bility by voting the little ballot. I believe in the referendum in the pro- per case, where there are great questions, and where the people rise up and want to settle those questions; a question of franchise or something of that sort, per- haps; but I believe 20 per cent, saves them that right. I do not believe in making it so that a couple of people can hold up an election, and I do not believe in it being possible to shift the responsibility on those questions. I be- lieve the principle is wrong, to shift the responsibility of legislation from the regularly elected representatives to the people who assume no responsibility, and a large percentage of whom do not un- derstand our form of government, and do not understand the language, and who come to the polling places with the little ballots, and either don’t vote at all or take the recommendation of the first man they meet as to whom they shall vote for. I think this amendment puts it in the power of the City Council to pass every ordinance along or dodge every respon- sibility. MR. MERRIAM: The original resolu- tion provides only a referendum on grants of public utilities. MR. HILL: That is true. Mr. O’Don- nell’s proposition brought me to my feet; if it is limited to franchise ques- tions, and if the City Council desires to secure it, it is quite a different prop- osition, but if it is wide open to every proposition it is entirely a different thing, and I do not think that when these questions are brought home to the legislature and the city aldermen that I they should shift the responsibility to the people. They should not dodge the responsibility, and we know very well in the legislature that those people who want to dodge, they will simply pass it down to the people on a referendum, and a man who is not afraid he will not be re-elected, a man who is not making for himself and against the interests of the people will stand up and take the responsibility of his own judgment in view of the facts that are laid be- fore him; he will vote upon that ques- tion, and if he is wrong and his people are not with him, then let him be de- feated and stay at home. MR. LATHROP: I wish to say only a word on a point which I think has not been touched upon and which I think is a practical one. I am opposed to the amendment of Mr. O’Donnell ex- tending this right to the City Council, for this reason: I think it is going to put it within the power of the minority, and a very small minority, of the council, to seriously embarrass legis- lation by proposing whenever a bill is proposed by a minority that it should be referred to the people, thereby put- ting the members of the majority in the embarrassing position of delaying legis- lation by voting for it, or of voting to put themselves in the apparent position of objecting to submitting the question to the people. I think it will enable a very small minority to embarrass the majority seriously. MR. EIDMANN: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hill has voiced my sentiments exactly, excepting that I think where you give the people the opportunity of present- ing petition for referendum that should settle it, and that the City Council should not be permitted to shift the re- sponsibility that the people who elect- ed them imposed on them. I think both the amendment of Mr. O’Donnell and the amendment submitted by Mr. Rosen- thal should be voted down for the good December 17 419 1906 and the independence and the quality of the members of the City Council. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Snow. MR. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, when this amendment was first offered, I ap- plied it in my mind to a condition which existed in the council at one time dur- ing my term of service, and it struck me at first blush that it was desirous, and now I have in mind a condition where a franchise ordinance had been prepared and was ready to be reported out to a committee just a short time before an election, at a time when there was not sufficient time could elapse to enable to prepare for its admission, and the council at that time would have been vfery glad to have been able to submit that ordinance to a pop- ular vote. But as I revolved in my mind the length to which these ques- tions might be carried, I reached very decidedly the opinion that it would be unwise. Now, as Senator Hill has pointed out, in a representative government the power of legislation has been delegated from the people to their representative assemblies, and this would simply place it in the hands of those representatives to re-delegate the power back to the people. As a matter of fact, you might just as well abolish the council or abol- ish any legislative body if you leave it in their hands to send any ordinance back for a popular vote. In every body there are a certain number of men, usually a considerable number, as hu- man nature runs, who are timid of char- acter, and who would be inclined to take a vote upon a thing which they might not entirely approve and shield themselves by saying they voted that vote because it was going back to the people to be decided. Now, it strikes me that not only will that condition prevail, but that you will make it exceedingly difficult for anybody or any interest or any corpo- ration desiring a public franchise for the benefit of the people of Chicago to transact their work, for them to secure it, because they will realize from the start that it is necessary to go back and hold an election, with all the ex- penses of election, and the expenses of a campaign of education before them. It strikes me that when you have pro- vided the possibility of a referendum vote upon any question upon which there is a large public sentiment, upon a reasonable basis (and I maintain that 20 per cent, of the voters is a reason- able basis) that we have done sufficient to enable the people of Chicago to pass in judgment upon the acts of their legislature. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, I do not want my position with refer- ence to this amendment to be misun- derstood. In offering that amendment I offered it simply with the idea of putting the proposition before this as- sembly in the clearest form, but I am personally unalterably opposed to this provision. It seems to me we would be making just as great a mistake by hav- ing a simple referendum. In fact, we would be making a still greater mis- take. From the arguments of Mr. Hill, Mr. Eidmann and Mr. Snow, I regard them as conclusive upon that propo- sition. I simply want to call attention to this fact: Anyone who has observed the proceedings in our City Council the last three or four years knows that even in a body as good as that body is they have often endeavored to . shift the responsibility which already rests upon them to some other person. So a few years ago we witnessed the passage of an ordinance, or the passage of some appropriation which was introduced at the behest of some firm, and which was | passed at a time when the council knew that the ordinance could not be carried into effect, and the council knew it I would mean the bankruptcy of the city, December 17 420 1906 and yet it was passed by that council because they knew it would be up be- fore the mayor and would be vetoed by the mayor, and instead of coming out boldly and bravely and taking the re- sponsibility as they ought to have done, they shifted that responsibility to the mayor of the city. Now, here we furnish an additional op- portunity, and, just as Alderman Snow has pointed out, we put it in the power of a good man in the council to shift the burden to the people, where it does not belong, and take it away from the City Council. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, the question is upon Mr. O’Donnell's amendment to strike out the word 1 ‘ such. ’ ’ As many as favor the motion of Mr. O’Donnell will signify by saying aye; opposed, no. The motion is lost. The question is now upon Mr. Merriam ’s resolution as written out by Mr. Rosen- thal. MR. ROBINS: Mr. Chairman, the expense and cost involved in a. 20 per cent, referendum petition is not incon- siderable. If the City Council were empowered to submit a question upon which there was a great deal of public discussion and legitimate public differ- ence, it seems to me it would be a help to the City Council and would rather strengthen their hands than weaken them. The possibility of having taken a stand in the council and having said what they thought, and then having referred that question to the people and having it endorsed by the people will not weaken a member’s backbone nor hands in my judgment but will strengthen them. It will do more. The worst enemy of good government everywhere is the lack of confidence of the people in their representatives. The most potent means for creating that lack of confi- dence is false statements in regard to important public acts, of the representa- tives of the people, and there are not a few representatives, in my judgment, all of the ablest and most honorable repre- sentatives who have gone over this mat- ter but would be glad to go back to their wards and their constituents and de- fend their action before the people. But there is one group of legisla- tors that will mightily fear it and those are the group that fear they must de- fend their action and who know if they were to submit them to the people they would probably be repudiated. And it is to get that very condition out of the public life, and those very representatives out of our public bodies that some of us advocate this measure in its large and general form, and this particular privilege of the City Council is a wise provision to allay public sentiment that has been falsely created against able and honorable representa- tives. The very best way, Mr. Chair- man, is if the sentiment be created, that the representatives be empowered to discuss that question before their people and have them vote their sen- timents upon it. One aldermen says, “ I am supported by my people;” an- other alderman says, “I am supported by my people,” and we do not know and the public does not know until some action such as has been indicated here and is provided for here has been taken. Now, upon this question of the for- eign countries I would like to ask Mr. Hill whether he thinks the people of the sixteenth ward are no less able to pass upon questions of public moment than the Honorable Stanley Kunz? I wish to say that you do not get away from the people in the last analysis ever, you have to get back to them, and communities that are able are apt to have ignorant representatives and they are apt, Mr. Chairman, to elect those representatives for personal, national and other reasons and to be apt to vote much more intelligently and indepen- dently upon a question than a person. Such seems to me to have been the December 17 421 1906 experience of public policy wherever it has been tried in this country or else- where. ME. HILL: May I ask the gentle- man a question? ME. EOBINS: Yes. MB. HILL: I would like to ask you whether you think one of those repre- sentatives that you refer to, one of the undesirable kind, whether it is more desirable to have him come up and vote directly on the question, knowing that he must go back to his constitu- ents and face his action, or to have him say, “I submitted it to my people and I abide by their decision ?” Doesn’t it leave the door wide open for that kind of a man to dodge? It isn’t the courageous man who stands up and votes with honest principles, but it is the weak man who says, “I will submit it on a referendum,” and when he goes back to his people he says, “I sub- mitted it to you, the blame is yours and not mine.” ME. EOBINS: I do not understand the proposition to be just what Sena- tor Hill suggests. I understand that you are to vote in your City Council, if you please, for or against the measure, and then, if you please, you can submit it to the people. ME. HILL: Evidently you did not quite catch my idea. Of course you will vote on the question one way or the other, but you can always justify it by saying “I voted that way, whichever way it is, but I knew it was coming back to you, and it would have to re- ceive your endorsement before it came along. The pressure was such, or what- ever the excuse may be, that I voted to pass this bill knowing it would come to you for your approval. If it had not come to you for your approval I should have voted the other way,” or some such answer as that. That is the way the thing is worked. That is the excuse given. “J know you would have to pass on it. It was coming back to you for you to settle it. It would not be- come a law until you had approved it.” ME. EOBINS: On the contrary, Mr. Chairman, I think the experience with those governments which have tried the referendum has been precisely the other way, that in cities where representa- tives knew they had to go back to the people with their action before it was confirmed, that they were more thought- ful, more considerate and they more certainly voted their sentiment and and the sentiments of their constitu- ents than the sentiment of some other special interest in the exercise of their delegative power. It is a curious lack of trust in the general good faith and intelligence of the people, Mr. Chairman, that if they elect a representative and choose him that they cannot pass upon this particu- lar measure. Are we so much taller than the people who sent us here, or is the general average of a City Council or a State Legislature so much higher in grade, intelligence and morals than the people? In my judgment it is not so. In my judgment the general experience of people everywhere is that it is about as great if it is not a little the other way. ME. HILL: May I ask you a ques- tion? ME. EOBINS: By all means. ME. HILL: I think the gentleman is assuming a position that is not cor- rect. No man assumes that a member of the legislature or of the City Coun- cil is superior to the people that elect him, nor did my remarks call forth any such criticisms. I resent that imputa- tion right now. The point that I made, and I think you will not deny it, is this, if you are delegated to certain duties, and people come to you and lay the matter before you on all sides and if you take up the subject and study it carefully, don’t you imagine that you have a better idea, a clearer con- ception of that than you would have December 17 422 1906 if you passed into a booth and were handed a ticket and voted yes or no right on it? That is what I mean. I do not mean I am superior to these people, or that any alderman is, not by any means, but the responsibility being put on a man he assumes that responsibility and because of that will look into it more thoroughly and decide it fairly where the other man does not assume any re- sponsibility at all nor is he accountable to anybody for his vote. MR. ROBINS: In reply to the speech, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that the whole argument in favor of a referendum is that it does educate the public. That the assumption of the gentleman that the man does not know what he is going to do until he goes into his booth, in my judgment, is the most false assumption that has been made in this room. The wide discus- sion upon questions of public policy at meetings devoted to such matters and the intelligent action of the people which has been praised on both sides of the press, that is in the press standing for both sides of the issue, as to its vote upon questions of public policy is common knowledge in this city. No, Mr. Chairman, it is not the assumption that the delegated representative is the wise person to act as against the peo- ple, that is not the true assumption. On the contrary, curiously diverting things come in to affect the judgment of dele- gates sometimes, and it truly is a great thing that when you take the question back to the people they vote whether they want this thing or they do not, which is the object of our government. (The question was called for.) MR. WHITE: It does not seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that the contention of the last speaker, that unless this particular amendment is passed at this particular time that we are about to in- fringe upon the inalienable rights of the people and correct the action of their representatives, is the right one. The fact is, I think we have already provided by a too large percentage, as I think, a way by which the people can make their wishes known in the face of any legislation that does not please them, and it is absurd to say because you do not extend that privilege to the City Council it is in any sense in- terfering with the rights of the peo- ple. We have established that fact, we have maintained it on the floor of this Convention, we have incorporated it in- to this charter. As I understand the principle of the referendum clause it seems to me its prime aim and object is to give the people at all times an opportunity of correcting wrong or undesirable legisla- tion; that is all it is. If you extend to the City Council by the amendment which Mr. Rosenthal presents, which, by the way he repudiates as jeopardiz- ing his reputation as a lawyer for mak- ing a clear statement an amendment, you pervert, in my judgment, the prime intention and aim of a referendum, be- cause here you do not merely give the people the right to correct wrong legis- lation, but you give your representa- tives the right and opportunity and you place before them the constant tempta- tion to shift their personal responsibili- ty back to the people, which was never the intention of the referendum so far as I know anything about its action. I think this ought to be defeated. MR. MERRIAM: Gentlemen, may I be allowed to make an explanation in regard to a matter of great importance to me, personally? This amendment seems to me to be somewhat in doubt. The Chairman said the amendment was offered by Mr. Merriam and written by Mr. Rosenthal. There was a good rea- son for this having been written out by Mr. Rosenthal. In the first place the original amendment was thrown to the waste paper basket; in the second place, I wished to have the resolution December 17 423 1906 drawn up, and I began to look around this Convention for the most suitable man to undertake that task, and I turned to Mr. Rosenthal as the man having the most experience in making amendments, and on him the duty natu- rally fell. (Laughter.) I do not wish it to appear that this matter was of such vital importance. If I had known I was lifting off the lid to such an extent as I appear to have done, I never should have proffered the resolution at all. We seem to have got into apparently what is a very import- ant matter, but I do not take it that this resolution involvel the fundamental rights of the people, or a representative government in general. Even if this resolution were adopted — if it were voted up or down — the representative government would go on, and the rights of the people would be still preserved. I do not think it would be a severe shock either way. Representative bodies are not infallible, and the peo- ple are not infallible. The legislature passed a resolution a short time ago declaring that the sky in the State of Texas was bluer than in any other place in the world, including Italy. And the legislature of New York approved a reso- lution that thirteen oysters should be in- cluded in a dozen. They are wise meas- ures, in my judgment. (Laughter.) I think the people occasionally make mis- takes. They make mistakes in a good many ways. The people made a mis- take a short time ago. We had up a proposition involving a sum more or less — the saving of a sum of some $60,- 000; that was carried by a scratch, and there was no reason why it should not have been carried unanimously. My purpose in having this resolution was that of legalizing what the City Council has done. In times past they actually proceeded without law, and it might be well to have it in a case such as a traction franchise. T understand there was no petition presented to the City Council before the final vote was taken on the ordinance pending at all. The people were asked to decide it yes or no. I want to legalize such a pro- cedure as that. And in the cases of franchise ordinances — this does not in- volve the whole question of the referen- dum vote — in cases of franchise ordi- nances where there is a fair cleavage of opinion, we should have it so that the question should be referred to the peo- ple in a legal way with petition. I apologize for taking up so much time. MR. O’DONNELL: I have listened with a great deal of attention to the arguments which were advanced against the present proposition before the house. I think it would be better, with my amendment, but in the present form, as it stands, I am in favor of it. The gentlemen who criticized this amendment, forget that the same thing is done by the State Legislature. They have submitted now every referendum to the people — they did submit this amendment to the constitution, which was passed upon by the people, so that for important matters of legislature that principle is recognized in this state; it is a part of our system. I am not in favor of giving too much power to the City Council, and this amendment of mine, if you will notice, is the first that I have, is the first amendment that I made to give the City Council any extraordinary powers; but I feel that the people should have something to say about these questions, and that they should not be compelled to get up monster petitions, if the City Council, in its wisdom, thinks that the proposition for a franchise should be submitted to the people. It is an easy way of submitting the question to the people if the City Council so de- sires. The principle is right. The prin- ciple is alive in this state. We are acting under it in this present constitu- tional amendment; and not only, in my judgment, should franchises for December 17 424 1906 giving away of the streets, or the spaces above or below, be submitted to the people, but any ordinance, of any mo- ment, the people should speak on it, and should be given an opportunity to speak on it. I sincerely hope that the amendment offered by Professor Mer- riam will be passed. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll on the adoption of Mr. Rosenthal ’s substitute. Yeas — Badenoch, Beilfuss, Bennett, Burke, Carey, Cole, Ritter, Dever, Eck- hart, J. W. ; MacMillan, McGoorty, Mer- riam, O’Donnell, Owens, Pendarvis, Powers, Rainey, Robins, Taylor, Vopic- ka, Werno, Zimmer — 22. Nays — Baker, Beebe, Brosseau, Brown, Church, Crilly, Dixon, G. W.; Eckhart, B. A.; Eidmann, Erickson, Hill, Hoyne, Hunter, Kittleman, Lath- rop, Linehan, Lundberg, McKinley, Oehne, Raymer, Revell, Rosenthal, Shan- ahan, Shedd, Shepard, Snow, Sunny, Swift White, Wilkins, Young — 31. MR. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, I desire to have my vote recorded. THE SECRETARY: Snow. MR. SNOW: No. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon Mr. vRo- senthal’s substitute the yeas are 22 and the noes 31, and the motion is lost. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the section as amended, and then the Chair will state the question. The Secretary read the section as amended. MR. McGOORTY: Mr. Chairman, I desire to call attention to the fact that the amendment should follow the word “ grant,” instead of the word, “ordi- nance,” as read by the Secretary. “Granting any franchise.” THE SECRETARY: “Granting any franchise or,” yes. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon the motion that the first alterna- tive to No. 2 be substituted for both Nos. 1 and 2. Are you ready for the question? MR. ROBINS: I want to inquire whether this vote at this time will pre- clude the consideration of the initia- tive? THE CHAIRMAN: The Chairman cannot answer that question. I dare say that any further resolution may be offered, but he can only state the mo- tion as it has been made, and that will relate only to the printed record. Those in favor of the motion say aye; those opposed no. MR. DEYER: I desire a roll call. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Robins, do you desire a roll call? MR. ROBINS: Yes, I ask for a roll call. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would suggest that when a roll call is desired you call for it before the call for the ' vote, in the interest of time. The Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Badenoch, Baker, Beebe, Beil- fuss, Bennett, Brosseau, Brown, Carey, Church, Cole, Crilly, Dixon, G. W.; Eckhart, B. A.; Eckhart, J. W.; Eid- mann, Erickson, Hill, Hoyne, Hunter, Kittleman, Lathrop, Lundberg, MacMil- lan, McGoorty, McKinley, Merriam, Oehne, Pendarvis, Powers, Rainey, Ray- mer, Revell, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Snow, Sunny, Swift, Taylor, White, Wilkins, Wilson, Young, —43. Nays — Burke, Ritter, Dever, Linehan, O’Donnell, Owens, Robins, Yopicka, Werno, Zimmer — 10. (During roll call.) MR. LINEHAN: I wish to give my reason for my vote. My only objection to the section is the 20 per cent. I vote no. MR. O’DONNELL: Mr. Chairman, I think the percentage is too high, there- fore I vote no. MR. ROBINS: Mr. Chairman, I think to require 20 per cent, would be unreasonable, therefore I vote no. MR. VOPICKA: For the same rea- son I vote no. December 17 425 1906 ME. WEENO: I vote no for the same reason as given by Mr. Yopicka. ME. BUEKE: Mr. Chairman, I de- sire to vote no. THE SECEETAEY : Mr. Burke votes how? ME. BUEKE: No. THE CHAIEMAN : Upon the mo- tion to adopt the yeas are 43, and the noes 10, and the motion to adopt is carried. THE CHAIEMAN: That substitutes alternative No. 2 for the other two. ME. SHEPAED: Mr. Chairman, that finishes this chapter? THE CHAIEMAN: Yes. ME. SHEPAED: Mr. Chairman, rev- enue is a special order for tomorrow evening. For the purpose of elucidating one or two of the propositions sub- mitted under the chapter entitled “Bevenue, ” I have sent to the Secre- tary’s desk four resolutions, so that they may go into the record, so that the members of the Convention may consider them tomorrow evening. I ask that they be read and deferred until to- morrow evening. THE CHAIEMAN: The Secretary will read the resolutions. The Secretary read the resolution, as printed hereinafter. THE CHAIEMAN: The matter will be published under the rules and de- ferred. ME. SHEDD: Mr. Chairman, I have sent to the Secretary’s desk a resolution which I desire to have read and de- ferred and published. THE Secretary read the resolution, as printed hereinafter. THE CHAIEMAN: This will be printed under the rules and taken up later. THE CHAIEMAN: The Secretary will now read 22; a number of special orders under 22. ME. EOSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, I ask that those be read one at a time, because they are separate sections. THE CHAIEMAN: They will be read one at a time. THE SECEETAEY: No. 1: MB. EOSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, I venture the opinion that that particu- lar section would be invalid if we were to adopt it. Legally 1 do not see how we could incorporate anything in our charter which shall be binding, as this will be, upon subsequent legislatures. If it was a matter of the construction of any subsequent law, I would say that the legislature could not pass any law without providing for the enforcement of the law. If it is intended as an in- struction upon the legislature hereafter, that could not be incorporated in a law relating to the City of Chicago alone. I think it is so apparently invalid that it need not be referred to the Law Com- mittee, but if there is any question about it, let be referred to that Law Committee. THE CHAIEMAN: What will you do with this, .gentlemen? ME. EAYMEE: I move it be not concurred in. THE CHAIEMAN: You have heard the motion that No. 1, Section 22 be not concurred in. ME. MEEEIAM: It was drawn up on the advice of competent counsel, that such a clause embraced in the char- ter would be constitutional. Mr. Kosen- thal has, however, raised the question of whether or not that would be a legal act or not. The purpose of it is merely to carry out such a vote as we voted the other night. It is very questiona- ble, even if that were not passed by the State Legislature, after granting to the charter a specific power, could by any subsequent law affect the City of Chi- cago. For example, suppose that if un- der the amendment of 1894, they had fixed the term of mayor of the City of Chicago for four years? Suppose now the State Legislature would pass an act providing that all the cities in this state — that the term of mayor should be December 17 426 1906 two years. Would that apply to the City of Chicago, or would it not? It might be a very serious question whether or not that would be applica- ble to this city, which has a charter framed under a particular constitutional amendment, conferring extraordinary grants of power. It was with, the object of obviating any such difficulty that it was proposed to insert the following clause in the charter: ‘ ‘ Provided, That any action of the General Assembly hereafter passed re- lating to a special clause in the state should not apply to the City of Chi- cago. ” MR. ROSENTHAL: If there is any serious doubt about the legality of that it might be referred to the Law Com- mittee. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, if such an action on the part of this Convention were legal, I should be heartily in favor of the motion, but it seems to me to be questionable. It seems to me that the point raised by Professor Merriam would be all right, as long as the State Legislature has passed the specific right on the council through this charter. Subsequent legislatures will not respect this right unless it is mentioned in the legislature. I think it is clear an that point. But it seems to me that before going on record, we should have the Law Committee, which is composed of emi- nent lawyers, consider this proposition. I think the matter should be referred to the Law Committee, and I move ac- cordingly. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion. All in favor say aye; those opposed, no. It is carried. MR. BENNETT: The proposition, as 1 understand it, has already been adopted, that the powers under the existing char- ter are to be retained in regard to this subject. MR. G. W. DIXON : I move to lay that section on the table. THE CHAIRMAN : It is moved and seconded that No. 2 be laid upon the table. All those in favor signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. MR. MERRIAM: I move a roll rail. THE CHAIRMAN : Perhaps we can obviate a roll call if we can have a little discussion on the question and see wheth- er or not it is subject to the vice Mr. Bennett refers to. Do you desire to discuss it, Mr. Bennett? MR. BENNETT: It is perfectly ap- parent that we have passed a resolution at the outset retaining the present char- ter, excepting insofar as this charter is- inconsistent with it. This is simply a repetition of work already done. It is for that reason that we have already in- corporated it, that I oppose putting it in a second time. MR. MERRIAM : I think the provision is — I think it provides for retaining the provisions of the existing law; it does not give that as a routine matter; that is simply an instruction of the Drafting Committee; it is simply an instruction to insert such provisions in the law as now exists in the charter. MR. BENNETT : There is no objec- tion to it if it is a matter of instruction. MR. MERRIAM: It is purely routine matter, instructions to the Drafting Committee. MR. O’DONNELL: I think it should be adopted as it is with this instruction to the Drafting Committee. MR. MERRIAM: I do not offer any objection. MR. PENDARVIS: There is some- thing in this resolution that has not been acted upon, and that is the wording which vests in the City Council the power to amend, which says “such as the charter may specify.” It may contain a great deal more than that, a person may have been casually reading MR. BENNETT : Mr. Chairman, if this Convention does not specify in its charter, provisions that are to be enforced they will not be enforced, and will not December 17 427 1906 receive recognition at the hands of this Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: What do you want to do with that section? MR. O’DONNELL: I move that it be . adopted. THE CHAIRMAN : It is moved and seconded that this section be adopted. As many as favor that signify by saying aye; opposed, no. The Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Badenoch, Brosseau, Burke, Crilly, Ritter, Dever, Eckhart, J. W., Hoyne, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, McGoorty, McKinley, Mer- riam, O ’Donnell, Oehne, Owens, Rai- ney, Revell, Robins, Rosenthal, Taylor, Yopicka, Werno, White — 25. Nays— Baker, Beebe, Bennett, Brown, Carey, Church, Cole, Eidmann, Hill, Hoyne, Hunter, MacMillan, Pendarvis, Raymer, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Snow, Swift, Young — 20. THE CHAIRMAN : Upon the motion to adopt No. 2 the yeas are 25 and the nays 20; No. 2 is adopted; the motion is carried. The Secretary will read No. 3. MR. ROSENTHAL: It seems to me almost beyond a doubt that the third section here, as well as the fourth section following, is invalid. The charter amend- ment provides that no local special law based upon this amendment affecting specially any part of the City of Chicago shall take effect until consented to by a majority of the legal voters of such part of the city, voting upon the ques- tion at any election. The charter amend- ment gives the 1 ‘ General Assembly power, subject to the conditions and limitations hereinafter contained, to pass any law providing for government for the City of Chicago. Now, that being a legisla- tive power it cannot be delegated, and it seems to me it would be worse than useless to attempt to submit anything of this sort. I want to say this, Mr. Chairman, that in another form, practically the same question was once submitted to the Law Committee, and the Law Committee re- ported that this matter could not be delegated to the City Council. MR. MERRIAM : I move to refer this matter to the Law Committee for opinion. THE CHAIRMAN : The motion is that this be referred to the Law Com- mittee. Is that the sense of the meet- ing? MR. O’DONNELL: I would like to move to amend that section by striking out the word 1 ‘ alter ’ ’ THE CHAIRMAN : There is a mo- tion before the house just at this mo- ment, Mr. O’Donnell. MR. O ’DONNELL : Before this is referred, instead of having the word ‘ ‘ al- ter” there, substitute the word “ex- tended.” They may see fit to make the franchise more than ten years or five years; it should not be extended more than twenty years. I think that ought to be submitted in that form to the Law Committee with the word “ex- tended” rather than with the word “al- tered. ’ ’ MR. YOUNG: I suggest that both the amendment and the original motion be referred separately, ana let them decide upon both. THE CHAIRMAN : Is that satisfac- tory to you? MR. O’DONNELL: Yes, sir, that is all right. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the entire subject matter be sent to that commit- tee. MR. MERRIAM: Including 4, because 4 rests upon 3. MR. O’DONNELL: I would like to have it plain, that I have called the at- tention of the Law Committee to that. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will so communicate it. The Secretary will now read No. 4. The Secretary read No. 4. THE- CHAIRMAN: The Chair would December 17 428 1906 suggest that this go to the Law Com- mittee also. ME. MEKRIAM: That was my mo- tion before. MR. G. W. DIXON : I might suggest, I move that it be referred to the Law Committee, in order to meet the sugges- tion made. THE CHAIRMAN : Are there any ob- jections to this section going to the Law Committee? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. PEND AR VIS: I would like to ask a question, and that is why the same objection that is raised to these two sec- tions, why the same objection raised to these two sections is not applicable to the latter part of section 2 that we have just adopted? THE CHAIRMAN : I cannot answer that question. MR. BENNETT : I offered an amend- ment at the outset, at the first meeting, Section 5 to this paragraph, published on page 114, in the copy I have here; I now move the adoption of that amend- ment down to and including the words “1889” in the eleventh line. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the resolution as amended. MR. WERNO: I move we adjourn. MR. BENNETT: I will state this portion which I now offer does not raise the question raised by Alderman Werno. When I offered this amendment on the floor of this Convention I supposed it only embraced the. annexation laws relating to prohibition districts. The amendment had been prepared by the attorney of the association, and it was handed to me, and I offered it with that understanding. Upon a study of the amendment, however, I find that only that part which I now move to have adopted relates to prohibition districts. THE CHAIRMAN: Will the Secre- tary read the part which Mr. Bennett moves the adoption of? THE SECRETARY : How far does it go? MR. BENNETT : Down to and in- cluding the figures “1889,” eleventh line, page 114. THE SECRETARY : Page 395, under the head of “Resolutions offered from the floor of the Convention but not acted upon. ’ ’ MR. BENNETT : I move its adoption. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bennett moves the adoption of the portion of his resolution just read. Are you ready for the question. MR. ROSENTHAL: In order that I may vote intelligently on this proposi- tion I would like to have Mr. Bennett state to us — I could not hear him — just what that act is. I have a general no- tion what it is, but 1 would like to be clear. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. Prior to the annexation in 1889, the State Legislature passed an act w T hich provided that prohibition dis- tricts theretofore established by the vari- ous towns should not be subject to modi- fication by the City Council. The people of tliese districts — this was one of the issues in that annexation campaign — the people of these districts voted for an- nexation because this restriction was in. I simply ask to have this restriction re- tained, and I move the adoption of that. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? MR. WERNO: I do not believe we are ready this afternoon to take up this whole subject matter, this matter . con- tained in Alderman Bennett’s amend- ment, and the matter contained in the resolution relating to the regulation of Sunday laws; and the other day I under- stood it was upon Alderman Bennett’s motion that both these matters went over with the understanding they should be taken up together. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion was that they be taken up with Section 22, and that we have just disposed of. MR, WERNO: Yes, to be taken up at the same time; that was the motion. December 17 429 1906 I have no objection at all to Alderman Bennett ’s resolution, but I think we ought to take the whole matter up at the same time as stated the other day. I don’t believe in doing it this afternoon, and therefore I move that this matter be postponed and taken up in conjunction with the other resolution at our next meeting, unless we are not going to take up any other matters excepting special orders tomorrow night. THE CHAIRMAN : Revenue is set for special order for tomorrow night. MR. WERNO: Will any other matters be taken up? THE CHAIRMAN: That depends up- on how long they take getting rid of revenue. The Chair is of the general im- pression that probably that will take up at least a large part of the session. MR. WERNO: I move that we post- pone this matter, the further considera- tion of this matter be postponed until our next meeting, or until such meeting that we can take it up. THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Werno moves that this matter be deferred until some future time, when it can be taken up. Are you ready for the question? MR. WHITE: I would like to ask a question in regard to paragraphs 3 and 4, Section 22 already referred to. I notice that in regard to powers of the City Council, there are three exceptions: first, tax rate; second, franchises; and third, municipal courts. I wonder if it is THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. White, will you take that up as soon as I put the pending motion? There is a motion pend- ing before the house, on this resolution which Alderman Bennett introduced. MR. WHITE : Certainly. THE CHAIRMAN: As soon as that is disposed of we will take up your mat- ter. MR. BENNETT: This amendment does not involve Alderman Werno ’s pro- position ; I have stricken out that part from my amendment which involves that. THE CHAIRMAN: As many as fa- vor the resolution or the motion made by Alderman Werno, to defer the first part of the resolution introduced by Alderman Bennett, signify by saying aye; opposed, no. The motion is lost. The question is upon the adoption of part of the resolution of Alderman Ben- nett just read by the Secretary. (Cries of “ question. ’ ’) THE CHAIRMAN: Those in favor of that will signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. The motion is carried. The Chair assumes that the balance of the resolution is to be taken up when this matter is taken up. You will now read the resolution in its proper form offered by Alderman Werno, or by Mr. Rosenthal. MR. WERNO: If there is nothing further pending before the Convention, I move that we adjourn. MR. WHITE : I do not think the negative of the proposition was the mo- tion at all; I assumed that the negative was not asked, was not put. I wished to ask a question before the matter was closed. THE CHAIRMAN: Is it upon this motion? MR. WHITE: I would like to ask a question; my point is that the motion to refer received an affirmative vote ; a nega- tive was not asked for; Mr. Bennett in- terrupted, and the negative was not put, the motion was not declared as I recall it, the motion to refer three and four. THE CHAIRMAN: I think the mo- tion was put and carried, and the amend- ment was carried, and I think the record will so show. MR. WHITE : Well, I don ’t care par- ticularly, only I just wanted to ask a question ; I would like now to ask this question, and I ask it for enlightenment as a lay man, if the Law Committee, in reporting back paragraphs 3 and 4, Sec- tion 22, will briefly explain so as to enlighten the unenlightened, why those three exceptions are made, whether they are made by the city or the Convention — mean the exceptions in regard to the December 17 430 1906 taxes, the tax rate, franchise and the municipal courts. I see some reason for the municipal courts, but I would like to know what reason the Law Committee has in regard to the two former excep- tions. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair does not know why the exceptions were made unless it was that the drafter did not want this particular section, those par- ticular sections fooled with. The question is upon the resolution of- fered by Mr. Werno and Mr. Rosenthal. MR. WERNO: I have made a motion to adjourn, and it has been seconded. MR. SNOW: I would like to ask Al- derman Werno to withdraw the motion he made a little while ago and to allow me to bring up a resolution which I have offered, before the Convention, and which in my opinion, will be disposed of in less than five minutes’ time, — simply for the purpose of gaining time. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Snow: MR. SNOW: I desire to call up the proposition which is printed on page 396, bottom left hand column, and ask the clerk to read it. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read it. (The Secretary read as directed.) • MR. SNOW: The object of that amendment is to prevent the collection of a surplus from any public utility which the city may own or operate in the shape of an indirect taxation. In other words, if we are ever going to own and operate public utilities in Chi- cago they should be so owned and oper- ated as to furnish the service for which they are designed at the least possible cost to the people who pay for the ser- vice, and the people who wish that ser- vice should not be required to pay any more for it, should not be required to pay any more for the services than that w r hich pays for the cost of the service; they should not be required to pay any- thing that furnishes an additional revenue to the city to take the place of taxation. I presume there will not be any serious objection to the matter. I have no de- sire to debate it unless objection is raised. I move the passage of the amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the resolution introduced by Alderman Snow. As many as favor it say aye; those opposed, no. (Cries of “roll call.”) MR. HOYNE : Let us hear the resolu- tion. THE CHAIRMAN: Read the resolu- tion again and the Secretary will call the roll. MR. REYELL: I move that action upon this be deferred to a later day, and the resolution be printed. THE CHAIRMAN: It has been printed. MR. REVELL: Oh, has it? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, it has; it appears in the record. MR. ROSENTHAL: After the words “sinking funds” I desire to amend by inserting the words “and requirements for improvements . 1 ’ THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal moves to insert the words ‘ 1 and require- ments for improvements, ’ ’ in the proper place. MR. SNOW : That is in connection with the phrase “including all proper and reasonable sinking funds , f ’ to insert “and requirements for improvements?” MR. ROSENTHAm : After the words “including all proper and reasonable sinking funds,” add “and requirements for improvements. ’ 1 MR. SNOW : You mean by that ex- tensions? MR. ROSENTHAL: For the exten- sion of the service or for improvement for the service. MR. SNOW : I think my language cov- ers that, but I have no objections to putting that in, I have no objection to its being made more specific, if the gen- tleman thinks it necessary. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection, it will be so inserted. December 17 431 1906 MR, MERRIAM: I would like to ask a question: What effect would that have upon the present standing waterworks? Does that include those public utilities now in existence and that may hereafter come in existence? MR. SNOW : Those in existence, as well as those to come into existence hereafter; and for that reason I cannot see any justice in collecting from the water department taxes for the city, for the support of the general city govern- ment, if that is being done. MR. RAYMER : I might say that the point Alderman Snow has just raised has been decided by the Supreme Court of this state. We cannot use the water funds for general public purposes. MR. MERRIAM : How much of a sur- plus is there in the water fund? MR. RAYMER: There is not any; but if we had any we would not have a right to spend it in that way. MR. LINEHAN : I would like to ask a question ; I would like to know if the sentence, “including all proper and rea- sonable sinking funds,” is not for the purpose of extension? MR. SNOW : It is stated so. MR. BENNETT: Before this ques- tion is put to the members of the Conven- tion, I think we had better think it over a little and see ; the result of this, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, will be to put in the sinking fund all the moneys col- lected by way of compensation for the purpose of acquiring utilities for future generations. In other words, the people that are now here will pay the money and the people to come will derive the benefits. We are now receiving — and it is of great assistance to this city — large sums in the way of compensation. To pass this resolution in this form, tying up these funds so that they will be placed in sinking funds, will deprive us of the use of all of this compensation. In my opinion it should not prevail. MR. HUNTER: I want to ask Mr. Bennett a question. Isn ’t it a fact that the contemplated improvements — sup- posed to get revenue from the water fund, will take what we make for the next fif- teen years? MR. SNOW : Yes. MR. HUNTER : And was not that contemplated improvement they set upon the present order? MR. SNOW : Yes. MR. HUNTER: Absolutely; and the extensions, the water pipe extensions, have all been appropriated for fifteen years — ■ that is the revenue from the water de- partment, for something that is abso- lutely necessary to the City of Chicago. MR. SNOW : Just one word more, Mr. Chairman. Alderman Bennett has misjudged the resolution as reported here. He speaks of the case in which compensation is paid by private corpor- ations owning and operating public utili- ties ; my resolution refers to the time when the City of Chicago shall own and operate, if that time shall ever come, its public utilities, and is based upon what to me is a sound principle which cannot be controverted, that the people should only pay the honest cost for the service which is rendered to them ; and that those who ride on the street cars, those who pay for the gas, those who enjoy any of the public utilities, should not be required to pay for what they get in addition to it and in direct form of taxation for the support of the general government. Any such form of taxation in my judgment is absolutely unfair, inequitable, unjust and indefensible from any standpoint. There is no reason why the man who rides upon a street car should pay four cents for it, four cents for the cost of such ride, and one cent for the support of the government of Chicago. The go- vernment of Chicago should be supported from general taxation, levied upon the people of Chicago in accordance with their ability to pay, and not placed upon the man who simply rides upon the street car. TTncler such plans, if money enough could be raised to support the law and December 17 432 1906 governmental functions of the city, the man who did not ride upon a street car, but rode in his own carriage, would not pay one cent of taxes towards the sup- port of the government. No such pro- position can be defended from any stand- point. Now, so far as the alderman’s state- ment that the placing of compensation in the sinking fund is going to be an unjust burden upon the present generation, my amendment contemplates no such condi- tions. It only refers to the time when the city shall own and operate, and re- quires that it shall be owned and oper- ated and the service furnished at the cost of such service. MR. HOYNE: I am sorry I cannot agree with Mr. Snow. I am opposed to this resolution or amendment. I do not know of any fairer way to raise revenue than to have it spread among the entire people. How could it be fairer with the gas for instance; suppose you pass a gas ordinance whereby you save to the city ten cents a thousand; will you tell me how an evener taxation could be dis- tributed among the people? Would not a man pay the amount of gas consumed? Would not it be by the amount of gas consumed by the people? The laboring man would use a small amount of gas and his proportion of the taxes would be small ; a large consumer of gas would pay a larger proportion of the tax; but when you say it is not a square way and a fair way to raise revenue, I for one cannot see it; and I think the city and these corporations, as I said the other night, I believe they should be given franchises and the corporation should be made to pay a percentage of their gross receipts, whatever they may be, whatever is right, and the city should derive revenue from that source. To me there is no fairer or squarer way of spreading the faxes among the people than the very way Mr. Snow in his speech seems to think is a foolish one. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this resolution. MR, McGOORTY : Mr. Chairman, I . think this resolution is correct in prin- ciple, that the inhabitants of the city should have the benefit of good public utilities at the lowest practical cost; but I do not think this is a section that should be incorporated in the city char- ter. As Alderman Bennett has indi- cated, matters and conditions may arise that can be best met by the City Council when such matters do arise. And it is unnecessary, this Convention standing for delegation to the city of large powers, or at least of large powers on special matters, and a large measure of home rule, that on any specified matter of this kind that the City Council ’s hands should be tied. There is no question about the proposition as between com- pensation on the one hand and the price of a street car fare on the other. The two latter propositions in my mind are correct in principle. I do not agree with Mr. Hoyne in re- gard to his position, but I do insist on the other hand that it is unnecessary that a proposition of this kind be adopted be- cause I think this Convention by its ac- tion heretofore taken has safeguarded, and wisely safeguarded the interests of the people, and it can be well left to the council to provide for such matters as are contained in this resolution: MR. YOUNG: I understand that such matters were left to the council relating to water funds, and that the council ap- propriated them, appropriated those funds for other purposes, and that was continued until it was stopped by the Su- preme Court. Now, we don’t want that situation to arise again. I think there is but one possible excuse for a municipal- ity running its utilities, and that is they should run them for the benefit of the people who are using them, purely and solely. MR. BEEBE: It seems to me that this is not a question hinging upon the December 17 433 1906 question of the water fund, or the ques- tion of running street cars, or possibly on the question of running gas, but we cannot tell what the city may engage in the future; it is extremely problematical and extremely difficult to tell what the city may engage in. I could imagine that some system of reducing garbage might be devised whereby the city would be in a position to make considerable money. It would seem if this were limited to the definite things it would be a good deal more preferable. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, while I am in favor of this proposition as a general principle, still, bearing in mind the fact that Mr. Fisher introduced the original proposition, and we all know that Mr. Fisher unfortunately, through a very sad calamity cannot be here today, I think he should be given an opportun- ity to express his idea on this proposition, as it is an amendment to something that he introduced; I therefore move that we defer the consideration of this matter until he can be here. ME. O ’DONNELL : I second the mo- tion. THE CHAIEMAN : It has been moved and seconded that this matter be deferred until Mr. Fisher can be here. MR. SNOW: It seems to me that that is a very peculiar position to take; I would be very glad, as a matter of course, to have a full attendance of this Convention, for the purpose of discussing a question of this kind. In my opinion it is one of the basic principles which should be incorporated in the charter; but if certain members are not here when a matter is before the Convention they have their opportunity when it. comes back from the committee in its drafted form. There are a number of questions which some of us, some of the members of this Convention would have been very glad to discuss if they could have been present at the time the Convention took the matter up, but some of us cannot be here at all of the meetings, and we will have an opportunity to further discuss it when it comes back from the committee. For that reason I oppose the postpone- ment. Now, jus$ a word in regard to the ar- gument presented by Mr. McGoorty, and that is in regard to the provision con- tained in the charter; I would not change the provision in the charter, because it is a basic principle upon which the City of Chicago should enter into municipal ownership and operation if it is ever going to do so. It should not be left to the council to decide upon the expedi- ency of some particular time. As far as Mr. Hoyne ’s objections are concerned, there is certainly a radical difference of opinion between those who hold to the same school that I hold and those who believe as Mr. Hoyne believes. I maintain that the illustration which he gave proves that there is no justice in requiring a man to pay taxes to the City of Chicago in accordance with the amount of gas he uses, because citizens do not use gas in proportion to their ability to pay for it, and they do not use gas in proportion to the benefits which they derive from organized go- vernment. I think taxes should be paid on the basis of the ability to pay upon the basis of property owned and upon the basis of security received through the establishment of orderly government. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman, without entering into the controversy on the separate schools, or different schools, represented by Mr. Hoyne and Mr. Snow, at this time, I move you, in order to clear up the ambiguity of misunderstanding apparent on the face of this resolution, that the following words be added after the word 1 1 Provided that ’ ’ — add the fol- lowing: “When the city shall own and operate a public utility. ’ ’ MR. SNOW : That is perfectly satis- factory to me, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection that ambiguity will be cleared December 17 434 1906 up. Now, gentlemen, what will you do with the motion to defer?” ME. WEENO: I favor the post- ponement of this matter, in accordance with the motion made by Mr. Eosenthal, and not only for that reason but for the reason given by Mr. Snow himself. Al- derman Snow says that this is one of the basic principles which should go into the charter. Now, if that is so, then it seems to me it is a matter that ought to be given careful consideration, and should not be rushed through here. We are not making charters for the City of Chicago every day or every year, and if this is such an important matter, why not let it go over for a day or two? THE CHAIEMAN : The question is upon the motion to defer. As many as favor that motion will signify by saying aye; opposed, no. (The vive voce vote left the Chairman in doubt.) THE CHAIEMAN: The Secretary will call the roll. ME. EOSENTHAL : What is the ques- tion, Mr. Chairman? THE CHAIEMAN: The vote is upon the question to defer action until some future time. Yeas — Badenoch, Beebe, Bennett, Brosseau, Burke, Carey, Crilly, Eitter, Dever, Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Hoyne, Hunter, Lathrop, Linehan, McGoorty, McKinley, Merriam, O ’Donnell, Oehne, Owens, Eainey, Eaymer, Eevell, Eobins, Eosenthal, Shepard, Yopicka, Werno, White— 30. Nays — Baker, Brown, Church, Cole, Dixon, G. W., Hill, Kittleman, Pendarvis, Shanahan, Snow, Young — 11. (During roll call.) ME. THOMPSON: Mr. Chairman, I was not here when the original matter was brought up. Therefore 1 do not de- sire to be recorded as voting. THE CHAIEMAN: Upon the motion to defer, the yeas are 30, and the nays are 11, and the motion to defer is car- ried. The question is now upon Alderman Werno ’s motion to adjourn until Tuesday evening at 7:30 o’clock. As many as favor that may signify by saying aye; opposed, no. The motion is carried and it is so ordered. And the Convention stood adjourned to meet Tuesday, December 18, 1906, at 7 : 30 o ’clock p. m. I December 17 435 1906 MEMORANDA. These memoranda indicate the various matters adopted by the Convention. (See page 50 and succeeding pages of the proceedings. I. SCOPE OF PROPOSED LEGIS- LATION. Action on all paragraphs under this section has been deferred. II. CONSOLIDATION. 1. The corporate authorities existing at present for the government of the park systems of Chicago shall be abol- ished and the management of the parks shall become a department of the city government. 2. The administration of the public school system of the city of Chicago and of the Public Library shall con- stitute departments of the city govern- ment. III. THE MAYOR. 1. The charter shall continue sub- stantially the provisions of the pres- ent laws regarding the qualifications and executive functions of the mayor. 2. The charter shall continue the provisions of the present laws regard- ing the relation of the mayor to the city council. Resolved, that it is the sense of this Convention that a clause be inserted in the charter designating a city official who shall act as mayor during the ab- sence or inability of the mayor. First Alternative to 2 b. The mayor shall have a right to a seat in the city council, but shall have no vote. He shall have the right to speak and present messages and intro- duce measures subject to the general rules of procedure of the city council. Second Alternative to 2: The charter shall continue the pres- ent provisions of the law regarding the relation of the mayor to the city coun- cil, except that he shall not preside at the meetings of the city council, but the city council shall elect its own presiding officer from its members. 3. The veto power of the mayor shall be as now prescribed by law. 4. The term of office of the mayor shall be four years. IY. ELECTIONS. First alternative to 1 : Elective city officers shall be nominated under a sys- tem of direct primaries, with appropri- ate provision for independent nomina- tions by petition. 2. The names of all the nominees for each office shall be printed on the ballot under the title of the office for which they are candidates, in alphabeti- cal order, and the designation of the party, if any, to which they belong. The following resolution on the sub- ject of suffrage for women is still pend- ing: 3. The charter shall contain no pro- vision for conferring the right of suf- frage on women. 4. a. The election of all city offi- cers, including those for the municipal court, shall be held in the spring. Pro- vided, however, that judges of the mu- nicipal court shall be elected at a time when no offices other than judicial are to be filled. 5. Candidates and political commit- tees shall be required to make sworn statements of receipts and expenditures of any campaign for nomination or election. December 17 436 1906 Y. CIVIL SEE VICE. 1. All departments of the city gov- ernment shall be under an appropriate civil service law. Alternative to 1 : a. The civil service law shall apply to the department of public parks. The application of the civil service law to the department of public parks shall not operate in and of itself to dis- charge the present employees. b. The civil service law shall apply to the municipal court. The Bailiff and Chief Clerk of the Municipal Court shall be subject to re- moval by a majority of the judges of the court, after a hearing, for incompe- tency, inefficiency, malfeasance or mis- feasance in office. The reasons for such removal shall be specified in writing and shall be spread at large upon the records of the court. Section 2 of Civil Service, together with resolution printed in the proceed- ings of December 6, have been referred to the Committee on Municipal Elec- tions, Appointment and Tenure of Office, with instructions to report to the Con- vention within ten days. VI. THE CITY COUNCIL. The charter shall provide for redis- tricting the city into seventy wards, of compact and contiguous territory, and with an equitable distribution of area and population, as soon as possible after the adoption of this charter, one aider- man to be elected from each ward. The city shall thereafter be redis- tricted by the City Council every ten years after the federal census has been taken, but no more than seventy wards shall be made. 2. The compensation of aldermen shall be at the rate of thirty-five hun- dred dollars per annum. The term of office of aldermen shall be four years. The aldermen shall be elected at the same time as the mayor. VII. POWEES OF THE CITY COUN- CIL IN GENEEAL. 1. The powers of the city council shall be as now prescribed by law, ex- cept as modified by this charter. The city council shall have all powers of local legislation which can, under the con- stitution, be vested in a municipality ; subject to the constitution of the state, the provisions of the charter, and the general laws of the state. 2. The specification of particular powers shall never be construed as a limitation upon the general powers granted by the charter; it being in- tended to grant and bestow upon the City of Chicago all the powers of mu- nicipal government which can constitu- tionally be delegated to it by the legislature, and which are not expressly prohibited to it by this charter, or by the constitution of the state ; and are not in conflict with any general law of the state. 3. No ordinance shall be passed finally on the day it is introduced, except when approved by an affirmative vote of two- thirds of all the members of the city council. VIII. POWEES OF THE CITY COUN- CIL WITH EEGAED TO OFFICES. The office of City Clerk shall cease to be a Charter office, and the City Council shall have power by ordinance to provide for the method of choosing the City Clerk and to provide for the duty of the City Clerk. The City Treasurer shall be ex-officio city collector. 3. The City Council shall have power to investigate any department of the city government and the official acts and conduct any city officer and the making, terms, and performance of December 17 437 1906 any public contract, and for the purpose of ascertaining facts in connection with such investigation to compel the attend- ance of witnesses and the production of material documents and books. IX. POLICE POWEE. 1. The police power of the city shall extend to the prevention of crime, to the preservation and advancement of local peace, safety, morals, health, order and comfort, and to the prevention of fraud and extortion within the community, by measures of regulation, licensing, require- ment of bonds, inspection, registration, restraint and prohibition, as well as by the establishment of municipal services. X. REVENUE. Section X and alternative stand as a special order. XI. INDEBTEDNESS. 1. The charter shall vest in the city the power to assume and incur debts and issue bonds in the manner and to the extent that such power is permitted to be granted by the constitutional amendment of 1904. XII. EXPENDITURES. 1. The provisions of the present city act regarding the annual appropriation ordinanc, the limitation of expendi- tures and contracts by such appropria- tions, the keeping of a separate fund for each appropriation, and the require- ment of warrants for payments, shall be substantially embodied in the charter. XIII. PROPERTY. 1. The city may acquire property by purchase or condemnation for any pur- pose for which it may exercise the power of taxation. The following paragraph together with all substitutes and amendments thereto as printed in the proceedings of December 14, 1906, have been re-re- ferred to the Committee on Rules, Pro- cedure and General Plan. 2. The city may so acquire property outside of as well as within the city lim- its for any municipal purpose. XIV. CONTRACTS. 1. Municipal services may be per- formed and municipal works carried out by the city directly or by means of con- tract. XV. STREETS AND PUBLIC PLACES. All paragraphs of Section XV are de- ferred to be considered together with the subject of Revenue. XVI. PUBLIC UTILITIES. 1. The provisions of the Mueller law and the limitations contained therein (including the twenty-year limit on franchises), except as herein otherwise provided, shall be extended to all in- tramural railways, subways, telephone, telegraph, gas, electric lighting and power plants, and other local public utility works operated in, over, under or upon the streets and public places of the city, also to docks, wharves and their necessary appurtenances. 2. The present powers regarding water works and water supply shall be con- tinued. 3. Any consent granted by the city for the private operation of public util- ity works shall be made subject to the continuing exercise of the city’s street and police powers concerning the struc- ture or works permitted, whether re- served in the grant or not. Alternative to 4: Such consent hereafter granted, shall further be subject to- the power of the city, whether expressly reserved in the grant or not, to make reasonable regu- lations of. the charges to be made in the operation of such public utilities. December 17 438 1906 The city shall have no power to grant away or limit the subsequent exercise of this right, except that the question of rea- sonableness of any such regulation shall always be determined with due regard to the provisions and limitations of the grant under which such public utility is being operated. 5. Such consent shall further be sub- ject to the right of the city to require adequate service and reasonable exten- sions at all times. No city officer or employe shall di- rectly or indirectly ask for, demand or accept for his own use, or for the use of another, any free pass, frank, gratui- ty, gratuitous service, or discrimina- tion from any person or corporation holding or using any franchise, privi- lege or license granted by the city. But this prohibition shall not ex- tend to the furnishing of free transpor- tation to members of the police and fire departments while on duty. The charter shall contain appropriate provisions for the enforcement of this prohibition. The following proposition as offered by Mr. Snow (and amended from the floor by Messrs. Rosenthal and Shepard) is still pending. Amend proposition 1, Section 16, Pub- lic Utilities, by adding the following: Provided that when the city shall own and operate a public utility then and in such case the city shall keep separate accounts for each public utility, and that the income from each service shall be used solely for the benefit of that utility exactly as though it were an independent business enterprise; and reasonable sinking funds, requirements for improvements or extensions, the price of or charge for the service ren- dered or commodity furnished by such utility shall be lowered, to the end that the patrons of such utility shall direct- ly secure the greatest benefit of the city’s ownership thereof, and no such utility shall be so operated as to render its charge for service an indirect form of taxation. XVII. PARKS, BOULEVARDS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS. 1. The management of the parks and parkways and small parks, and of any forest preserve or outer belt park sys- tem shall be vested in a board of park commissioners consisting of nine mem- ber who shall be appointed by the mayor of the City of Chicago — three from the West Side, three from the South Side and three from the North Side; three for a term of two years, three for a term of four years, and three for a term of six years, their successors to be ap- pointed for a term of six years. Any vacancy which may occur shall be filled by appointment of the mayor, for the unexpired term. No appointment, how- ever, shall be acted upon until at a subsequent meeting of the City Coun- cil. The park commissioners shall be ap- pointed by the mayor, with the consent of two-thirds of the members of the City Council. The following paragraph was de- ferred, for consideration together with the subject of Revenue. 2. Taxes may be levied and bonds is- sued for park purposes by the City Council only upon the request of the park board; and park funds shall be paid out only upon the order of the park board. XVIII. EDUCATION. Section XVIII and alternatives stand ^ as a special order. XIX. LIBRARY. 1. The management of the public library shall be vested in a board of nine library directors, constituted as at December 17 439 1906 present, and with the present powers and duties, except as herein otherwise provided. 2. The term of office of members of the library board shall be six years, three retiring every two years. 3. The library board may establish branch libraries and reading rooms, sub- ject to the approval of the City Coun- cil. XX. PENAL, CHARITABLE AND REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS. 1. The charter shall grant to the city, in addition to the powers which it has now: a. Authority to maintain alms- houses. b. Authority to maintain free lodg- ing houses, and free employment bu- reaus in connection therewith. c. Authority to maintain creches for infants. d. Authority to maintain training schools for dependent and indigent children. 2. The city shall have the power to contract with the county of Cook or otherwise provide for the detentions, housings and care of indigent persons, prisoners, or dependent or delinquent children. This section shall contain a clause that the City of Chicago can contract with the county of Cook for the erec- tion and maintenance of a Juvenile Court building. XXI. INITIATIVE AND REFEREN- j DUM. The charter shall provide that any or- dinance granting any franchise or the use of any street or alley or space below ! as well as above the level of the sur- face of the streets, alleys and other j public places for any public utility, j shall not go into effect until sixty (60) days after the passage thereof, and if within that time twenty (20) per cent. | of the voters of the city petition for the submission of such ordinance to popular vote at the next succeeding general or special election, such ordinance shall not go into effect until and unless at such election it shall have been ap- proved by a majority of the voters vot- ing upon the question. XXII. RELATION OF THE CHAR- TER TO OTHER LAWS, AND AMENDMENTS TO CHARTER. The following section has been re- ferred to the LAW COMMITTEE for an opinion as to its constitutionality. 1. Any act of the general assembly that shall be passed after the adoption of this charter relating to the govern- ment or the affairs of the cities of the state or of cities containing a stated number of inhabitants or over shall be construed as not applying to the City of Chicago. 2. The charter shall re-enact the pro- visions (not inconsistent with these res- olutions) of the existing laws applicable to the government of the City of Chi- cago, and shall vest in the City Council power to amend such of these provisions as the charter may specify. The following sections have been re- ferred to the LAW COMMITTEE for an opinion as to their constitutionality: 3. The City Council shall have power to amend any part of this charter with the approval of three-fifths of those voting on the proposed change at any election, provided that the tax rate established by this charter shall not be increased nor the twenty-year limit on franchises be altered, extended, nor the municipal court act amended, nor any provision be made for the exercise of any power not strictly local or municipal in its character. December 17 440 1906 4. The charter shall make provision for submission to popular vote of amendments to the charter, proposed by a petition of per cent, of the voters of the city, such proposed amendments to become part of the charter when ap- proved by a majority of the votes cast at the election (or: upon the question). Provided, that in this manner the tax rate established by this charter shall not be increased, nor the twenty-year limit on franchises be altered, nor the municipal court act amended, nor any provision be made for the exercise of any power not strictly local or munic- ipal in its character. 5. Nothing in this act shall be con- strued to modify, impair or affect or to confer upon the City Council power to pass any ordinance modifying, impair- ing or conflicting with the provisions of Section 18 of an act entitled “An act to provide for the annexation of cities, incorporated towns and villages or parts of same to cities, incorporated towns and villages” approved April 25th, 1889. Resolutions offered from the floor of the Convention, but not acted upon. BY. MR. SHEPARD: Resolved, That in any act providing for the formation and disbursement of the police pension fund the following provision be incorporated: That the members of the police de- partment to be included in the bene- fits of such pension fund shall be as follows: The General Superintendent of Po- lice, Assistant General Superintendent of Police, Inspectors, Captains, Lieu- tenants, Sergeants, Patrolmen, Patrol Drivers, Superintendent of Horses, Su- perintendent of Construction, Superin- tendent Bureau of Identification, As- sistant Superintendent Bureau of Iden- tification, Secretary of the Police De- partment, Private Secretary to the Gen- eral Superintendent of Police, Police Custodian Stolen Property, Chief Clerk Secretary’s office, Clerk in Secretary’s office, Chief Clerk in Detective Bu- reau, Chief Operator, Assistant Chief Operator, Operators, Drillmaster, Chief Matron, Matrons, Feed Inspector, De- partment Printer, Vehicle Inspectors, Photographer, Assistant Photographer, I Stenographers, Supply Drivers, Finger Print Expert and such other mem- bers as may hereafter be provided for by ordinance. BY MR. BENNETT: Resolved, that the present laws re- lating to firemen’s pensions be retained and included in the charter. BY MESSRS WERNO AND ROSEN- THAL: Chapter 7, section 1, alternative 1. In addition to all the legislative powers now conferred upon it by the general cities and villages act and the amendments thereof, the charter shall vest in the city council the power to regulate the legal observance of the weekly day of rest, commonly called Sunday; and the sale of liquors by bona fide athletic, charitable, edu- cational, fraternal, musical and social associations, corporations and societies at social gatherings, or entertainments conducted or held by them only; and in general all powers of local legisla- tion which may under the constitution be vested in a municipality. December 17 441 1906 BY MR. BROWN: Permission shall not be given to any person to retail any goods, fruit or vegetables from a wagon or other vehieh*. BY MR. SNOW: Amend proposition 1, Section 16, Pub- lic Utilities, by striking out all after the word “city” in line 11, and insert- ing in lieu thereof the following: “also to docks and wharves.” BY MR. TAYLOR: A permanent educational commission of advisory capacity shall be appointed by the mayor with the approval of the council, to consist of seventeen mem- bers, who shall serve without compensa- tion, including the superintendent of the public schools and the librarian of the public library, who shall be mem- bers ex officio. Each other member shall hold office until another person is ap- pointed to succeed him. It shall be the function of the educa- tional commission to tender advice and recommendations regarding the public school system of the city to correlate the educational forces of the city and to prevent unnecessary duplication of ac- tivities by exercising their influence to- word co-ordinating the various educa- tional and scientific institutions of the city. BY MR. TAYLOR: I. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCA- TION. The City of Chicago shall constitute one school district. The public school system of the city shall be under the management and control of a depart- ment of education at the head of which there shall be a Board of Education, and no power by this charter vested in the Board of Education or in any officer of the department shall be exercised by the City Council except as by this char- ter otherwise provided. II. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION. The Board of Education shall consist of fifteen members who shall be ap- pointed by the mayor of the city by and with the approval of two-thirds of the City Council at a meeting subsequent to that at which they shall have been nominated. They shall serve for a term of four years, except that on the first appoint- ment of the board three members shall be chosen for one year, four for two years, four for three years, and four for four years, and annually thereafter members shall be appointed to suc- ceed those whose terms expire. The members of the Board of Educa- tion shall serve without compensation. To be eligible for appointment to the board a person shall be at least thirty years of age and a resident and citizen of the United States and of the City of Chicago for at least five years im- mediately preceding the appointment. III. SCHOOL PROPERTY. The charter shall re-enact in sub- stance the provisions of the existing law regarding the acquisition, tenure, and disposition of property for school purposes,, but no real estate shall be leased for a term longer than five years, nor shall the terms of any existing lease be altered without the concurrence of the City Council. IY. POWERS AND ADMINISTRA- TIVE DUTIES OF THE BOARD. In addition to the powers now vested in it by law, the board of education shall have power to establish as well as maintain schools of all grades and kinds, including normal schools, schools for defectives and delinquents, schools for the blind, the deaf and the crip- pled, schools or classes in manual train- ing, constructional and avocational teach- ing, domestic arts and physical culture, extension schools and lecture courses, and all other educational institutions and facilities. December 17 442 1906 It shall have the power to co-operate with the juvenile court and to make ar- rangements with the public and other libraries and museums for the purpose of extending the privileges of the pub- lic library and museums to the attend- ants of schools and the public in the neighborhood of the schools. The board of education shall have the power to fix the school age of pupils, which in kindergartens shall not be under four years and in grade schools shall not be under six years. Y. REVENUE. The charter shall preserve the provi- sions of the present law regarding the levy and collection of taxes for school purposes, except that it shall not em- body the limitation of the power to support schools to the period of nine months of the year. The provisions of the present law re- garding the care and custody of school funds shall be re-enacted. The board of education shall have power by and with the concurrence of the City Council to issue bonds to raise money for purchasing school sites and for the erection of school buildings, and provision shall be made for the pay- ment of such bonds out of the school building tax. VI, EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF THE BOARD. Rules of the board of education shall be enacted or changed, money appro- priated or expended, salaries fixed or changed, courses of instruction and text- books adopted or changed (subject to additional provisions hereinafter con- tained), only at regular meetings of the board of education, and by a vote of the majority of the full membership of the board of education, and upon such propositions, and upon all propositions requiring for their adoption at least a majority of all the members of the board, the ayes and nays be taken and recorded. VII. OFICERS. The board of education shall annual- ly choose one of its members as presi- dent, and one as vice-president of the board. The board shall appoint as ex- ecutive officers a superintendent of schools and a business manager, and may also appoint or provide for the ap- pointment of such other officers and employes as it may deem necessary, and shall, subject to the provisions of this charter prescribe their duties, compen- sations and terms of office, but the term of office of the superintendent of schools and of the business manager shall not be less than four years. And the sal- ary of no officer shall be lowered dur- ing his term of office. The requirement that an officer of the city shall at the time of his appoint- ment be a resident of the city, shall not apply to the superintendent of schools. The appointment and removal of the superintendent of schools, and a busi- ness manager, and of such other princi- pal officers directly appointed by the board, as the board may by general or- dinance designate, shall not be subject to the civil service law, but they shall be removable only for cause, by a vote of not less than two-thirds of all the members of the board, upon written charges to be heard by the board on due notice to the officers charged therewith, but pending the hearing of the charges, such officers may by two-thirds vote be suspended by the board. VIII. SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS. (I.) The superintendent of schools shall have a seat in the board of educa- tion, but no vote. (2.) Appointments, promotions and transfers of teachers, principals and other educational and attendance officers shall be made, and text-books and educational apparatus shall be in- troduced by the board of education up- December 17 443 1906 on the recommendation of the superin- j tendent, but upon his failure to make such a recommendation within a reason- able time after demand, the board may make appointments, promotions and transfers, and adopt text-books and edu- cational apparatus by a two-thirds vote of all its members, (3.) He shall be consulted as to loca- tion and plans of school buildings and as to plans and specifications for educa- tional supplies. (4.) Text-books and apparatus once adopted shall not be changed within four years after their adoption, except upon vote of not less than two-thirds of all the members of the board of educa- tion. (5.) The superintendent of schools shall nominate for appointment by the board of education, assistant and dis- trict superintendents and principals of schools, and shall have power, with the consent of the board, to remove them upon complaint and for cause. IX. THE BUSINESS MANAGER. The business manager shall have the general care and supervision of the property and the business matters of the department of education. He shall with the concurrence of the board of education appoint his subordi- nate officers and employes, among whom there shall be a trained architect and a trained engineer. In matters affecting the general poli- cy of his administration he shall be subject to the direction of the board. X. APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS, ETC. (1.) Appointments, promotions and transfers of teachers shall be made for merit only, and after satisfactory ser- vice for a probationary period of three years, appointments of teachers and principals shall become permanent, sub- ject to removal for cause upon written charges, but the board need not retain in service more principals or teachers than the needs of the schools require. (2.) The standing of teachers for appointment and promotion shall be en- trusted to a bord to be constituted by the board of education, of which the su- perintendent of schools shall be the head. XI. COMPULSORY EDUCATION. The maximum age of compulsory school attendance shall be increased from fourteen to sixteen. But the children between the ages of fourteen years and sixteen shall not be required to attend school for such time during said years as they may be in good faith engaged in regular employment not less than five hours daily for not less than five days in each week. XII. PENSONS. The Board of Education may, and with the co-operation and consent of the City Council, establish a permanent pen- sion system for teachers, principals and other employes of the Board of Educa- tion. It may be maintained in part from the public funds to be provided by the city, and in part by voluntary, fixed and proportionate contributions, to be retained from the salaries of teachers and principals. The pension system, as now administered, shall continue until the same is organized for administra- tion under and by virtue of the provi- sions hereof. XIII. REPORT AND EXAMINA- TION OF ACCOUNTS. The mayor shall, as often as yearly, and may as often as semi-annually ap- point certified public accountants, to ex- amine and audit the accounts of the Board of Education, and the report thereof, together with any recommenda- tion of such accountants, as to change in the business methods of the board, or of any of its departments, officers, or employes, shall be made to the mayor and to the Board of Education, and bo spread upon the records of the latter. The expenses of such audit shall be paid by the board. December 17 444 1906 BY MR. LATHROP: Amend Section 1, of XVI, by adding the following words: Provided, However, that the city, shall not have power to operate such public utility works by virtue of any- thing in this section contained. BY MR. SHEDD: Resolved, That in cases where a po- lice officer, in the actual discharge of his duty, is charged with an offense, such as murder, manslaughter, or other serious charge, or charges, that the Common Council shall appropriate a sufficient fund for attorney’s fees to the end that such officer shall be prop- erly represented in court, and the truth of said allegations brought out. BY MR. SHEPARD: As a substitute for Section 1, Chap- ter X, Revenue, as printed at page 53: GENERAL TAXATION. Section 1. The City Council of the City of Chicago shall annually in the first quarter of its fiscal year, levy a general tax for all city, school, park and library purposes for such year, not ex- ceeding in the aggregate, exclusive of the amounts levied for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness per centum of the assessed value of the taxable property of said city as assessed and equalized according to law for gen- eral taxation. The said City Council in its annual levy shall specify the re- spective amounts levied for the pay- ment of bonded indebtedness and the amount levied for general city purposes, interest on bonded indebtedness, the amount levied for educational purposes, the amount levied for school building purposes, the amount levied for park purposes and the amount levied for li- brary purposes. The county clerk shall extend upon the collector’s warrant all of such taxes, subject to the limita- I tion herein contained, in a single col- umn as the City of Chicago tax. In case the aggregate amount levied, ex- clusive of the amount levied for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, shall exceed per centum of such assessed value such ex- cess shall be disregarded, and the resi- due only treated as certified for exten- sion. In such case all items in such tax levy except those for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, shall be re- duced pro rata. The city treasurer of the City of Chicago shall keep separate funds in conformity to said tax levy, which funds shall be paid out by him, upon order pf the proper authority for the purposes only for which the same were levied. 2. The Board of Education of the City of Chicago shall in January of each year prepare and transmit to the City Council a statement of its receipts and expenditures for the preceding calen- dar year stating therein the sources of its receipts and the several objects and purposes of its expenditures. It shall also prepare and transmit to the City Council in January of each year an es- timate of its expenditures for the cur- rent calendar year, stating therein the several objects and purposes of such expenditures. 3. The Board of Park Commissioners of the City of Chicago shall in January of each year prepare and transmit to the City Council a statement of its re- ceipts and expenditures for the preceding calendar year stating therein the sources of its receipts and the several objects and purposes of its expendi- tures. It shall also prepare and transmit to the City Council in January of each year an estimate of its expendi- tures for the current year, stating therein the several objects and purposes of such expenditures. December 17 445 1906 4. The Board of Library Directors of the City of Chicago shall in January of each year prepare and transmit to the City Council a statement of its receipts and ex- penditures for the preceding calendar year, stating therein the sources of its receipts and the several objects and pur- poses of its expenditures. It shall also prepare and transmit to the City Council in January of each year an estimate of its expenditures for the current year, stating thereing the several objects and purposes of such expenditures. SPECIAL* ORDERS SECTION X. — Revenue, at page 53. (Tuesday, December 18, at 7:30 o’clock p. m. SECTION XY. — Streets and Public Places, at page 54. (Tuesday, December 18, at 7:30 o’clock p. m.) SECTION XVII. — Education, at page 56. (Thursday, December 20, at 7:30 o’clock p. m.) PARAGRAPH 3. — Suffrage, at page 52. (To be taken up immediately after the disposition of the subject of Education.) CORRECTIONS. MR. SHANAHAN: On page 92, first column: Line 13, insert word “speak” instead of “come.” MR. SHANAHAN: On page 101, second column: Line 22, after the word “then” add “who shall.” MR. SHEDD: On page 128, first column, second line, strike out “in a” and insert therefor: “eliminating the.” Also, in the third line, after the word “paper,” insert “but retaining the par- ty column. ’ ’ MR. POST: On page 130, second column, fifth line from bottom, sub- stitute the word “constitutional” for the word “satisfactory.” MR. SHEPARD: On page 134, first column, last paragraph, fifth line, strike out “that is, that all municipal, officers and city officers, including the municipal court judges shall be elected in the spring” and insert therefor: “that is, that all city officers shall be elected in the spring at one and the same election, except the municipal court judges.” MR. SHANAHAN: On page 159, first column, next to last line, strike out “it along” and insert “about its passage. ’ ’ MR. WERNO: On page 161, left hand column, line 25, strike out the word “has” and insert in lieu thereof the word “have.” Also on page 161, right hand column, 13th line, strike out the words “to give” and insert in lieu thereof the words “who gives.” MR. LINEHAN: On page 162, first column, next to last line, strike out word “devoted” and insert “di- vorced.” Also same column, last line, strike out word “to” and insert December 17 446 1906 “from.” Also, same page, second col- umn, first line, strike out “we are pro- posing” and insert “a proposal.” MR. POWERS: On page 166, sec- ond column, fourth, fifth and sixth lines, strike out “Well, can’t he do that without the consent of this Conven- tion?” and insert in lieu thereof “He cannot do that without the consent of . this Convention. ’ ’ MR. SHANAHAN: On page 170, first column, fourth line, after the word “entrance” insert the following: “to the service protected by the law.” MR. PENDARYIS: Page 179, first column; strike out entire line, and in- sert in lieu thereof: “that fact we put into the,” also, same page, same column, in fourth line from bottom, insert the word “meet” for “leave.” MR. RE YELL: Page 179, about cen- ter of the last column, strike out the four last words. MR. REVELL: Page 181, strike out the sentence or paragraph commencing with “It seems to me if the duty” and ending with “that will at least let them out of it,” and insert the following: “It seems to me that as between an appointment by the judge of the Mu- nicipal Court and an appointment by the Chief Justice of that court, which latter might be influenced by the County Cen- tral Committee — as suggested by Aider- man Raymer — the latter would be pre- ferable, as it would eliminate the other twenty-seven or twenty-eight judges of the Municipal Court from political in- fluence. It is doubtful, however, if the Chief Justice could be influenced by anybody or anyone toward the appoint- ment of an incompetent man.” column, twelfth line of paragraph, strike out words “a movement” and insert “an improvement.” MR. PENDARYIS: Page 226, second column, line 24, change the word “po- sition” to “provision”; also, same page, same column, line 26, change the word “of” to “by.” MR, YOPICKA: On page 226, sec- ond column, correct as follows: “Mr. Chairman. — If Mr. Rosenthal will change his amendment to read $3,500 minimum and $5,000 maximum, you will get men of more intelligence to seek the office; make it a minimum salary of $3,500 and a maximum of $5,000, and not more than that.” MR. LINEHAN: I would like to have inserted in the records at page 253, column 2, anywhere there, the fol- lowing paragraph, which was a part of Mr. Fisher’s speech, and was left out wholly, as follows: “ * * * Mr. Linehan, to speak plainly, is in sympathy with the present mayor, for this reason. He is willing that the term of office of the mayor should be four years, but objects to the aldermanic term being lengthened. I ask him if he would be of the same mind if he were opposed to the mayor, but was in sympathy with the city coun- cil, which had to seek re-election every two years.” MR. FISHER: I must object to the insertion of this language as being my exact language; that is not exactly what I stated. I think it does fairly state the. sense of what was stated, but the remark which I made was that Mr. Line- han was in favor of the policies of the present mayor. I don ’t know whether he is in favor of the present mayor or opposed to the present mayor, but I do understand that he is in favor of the policies of the present mayor. MR. YOPICKA: Page 214, second December 17 447 1906 ME. PENDAEYIS: On page 257, second column, line 3, insert the word “to” in place of “on.” ME. DEYEB: On page 299, first col- umn, fifth line of the remarks, omit the word “not.” Also, after the word “certain,” add “general state.” ME. HOYNE: On page 336, substi- tute the following remarks of Mr. Hoyne : Mr. Chairman, 1 passed this because I voted to postpone action on this matter, and because I don ’t think a fair repre- sentative number of members is present to consider this matter. I am opposed to municipal ownership. I do not be- lieve it is a good thing. I do not think the city would get the best results out of it, and it has not been proven other- wise to my satisfaction. In my opinion the city has lost $1,000,000 a year by holding up and using this traction ques- tion as a political foot ball. One million dollars a year the city could and would have had as an additional revenue, if this matter had been settled right, by a fran- chise. And so with other matters. I do not think the electric light company, or the telephone company, or the gas com- pany should be municipally operated. I believe franchises should be issued to every one of these companies; — twenty- year franchises. I would like to see the city get the revenue that it deserves from these corporations. The city should no^ be receiving ten cents a thousand from the gas company, giving the city an an- nual income of a million dollars or more. I say the city is losing revenue by not giving franchises. You never knew of a municipal corporation or any other city or government corporation that got as much money out of a property or oper- ated it as economically as a private cor- poration, and for that reason, Mr. Chair- man, I vote “no” on this proposition. ME. PENDAEYIS: At page 384 in the roll call, voted “Nay,” name omit- ted. December 17 448 1906 RESOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO AMENDMENT OF STATE CONSTITUTION Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Illinois, the Senate concurring there: in That there shall be submitted to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection at the next election of members of the General Assem- bly, a proposition to amend the Constitution of this State as follows: Resolved, That Article IV of the Constitution of this State be amended by ading thereto a section to be numbered and known as Section 34, and reading as follows, to-wit: Section 34. The General Assembly shall have power, subject to the condi- tions and limitations hereinafter contained to pass any law (local, special or general) providing a scheme or charter of local municipal government for thei territory now or hereafter embraced within the limits of the City of Chicago. The law or laws so passed may provide for consolidating (in whole or in part) in the municipal government of the City of Chicago, the powers now vested in the city, board of education, township, park and other local governments and authorities having jurisdiction confined to or within said territory, or any part thereof, and for the assumption by the City of Chicago of the debts and liabilities (in whole or in part) of the governments or corporate authorities whose functions within its territory shall be vested in said City of Chicago and may f authorize said city in the event of its becoming liable for the indebtedness of two or more of the existing municipal corporations lying wholly within said City of Chicago, to become indebted to an amount (including its existing indebtedness and the indebtedness of all municipal corporations lying wholly within the limits of said city, and said city’s proportionate share of the indebtedness of said county and sanitary district which share shall be determined in such manner as the General Assembly shall prescribe) in its aggregate not exceeding five per centum of the full value of the taxable property within its limits as ascertained by the last assessment either for State or municipal purposes previous to th© incurring of such indebtedness (but no new bonded indebtedness, other than for refunding purposes, shall be incurred until the proposition therefor shall be consented to by a majority of the legal voters of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special) ; and may provide for the assessment of property and the levy and collection of taxes within said city for corporate purposes in accordance with the principles of equality and uniformity prescribed by this Constitution; and may abolish all offices, the functions of which shall be otherwise provided for; and may provide for the annexation of territory to or disconnection of territory from said City of Chicago by the consent of a majority of the legal voters (voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special) of the said city and of a majority of the voters of such territory, voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special, and in case the General Assembly shall create municipal courts in the City of Chicago it may abolish the offices of Justices of the Peace, Police Magistrates and Constables in and for the territory within said city and may limit the jursidiction of Justices of the Peace in the territory of said County of Cook outside of said city to that territory, and in such case the jurisdiction and practice of said municipal courts shall be such as the General Assembly shall prescribe; and the December 17 449 1906 General Assembly may pass all laws which it may deem requisite to effectually provide a complete system of local municipal government in and for the City of Chicago. No law based upon this amendment to the Constitution, affecting the municipal government of the City of Chicago, shall take effect until such law shall be con- sented to by a majority of the legal voters of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special; and no local or special law based upon this amendment affecting specially any part of the City of Chicago shall take effect until consented to by a majority of the legal voters of such part of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special. Nothing in this section contained shall be construed to repeal, amend or affect Section Four (4) of Article XI of the Constitution of this State. Adopted by the House, April 22, 1903. Concurred in by the Senate, April 22, 1903. PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1906 (Etyiratjo (Eljartrr (Cmiurutinn Convened, December 12 , 1905 Headquarters 171 WASHINGTON STREET TELEPHONE MAIN 4877 Milton J. foreman, .... Chairman Alexander H. Revell, . Vice-Chairman M. L. McKinley Secretary Henry Barrett Chambehlin, asst. Secy ' . December 18 453 1906 PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Regular Meeting, Tuesday, December 18, 1906 7:30 O’clock P. M., in the City Council Chamber OFFICIAL RECORD Published by authority of the Chicago Charter Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: The Convention will be in order. The Secretary will call the roll. Present — Foreman, Chairman, and Ba- ker, Beebe, Bennett, Brosseau, Brown, Burke, Carey, Church, Clettenberg, Cril- ly, Kitten, Dever, Dixon, G. W., Eck- hart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Erickson, Gansbergen, Guerin, Hill, Hoyne, Hunter, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, Lundberg, MacMillan, McCor- mick, McGoorty, McKinley, Merriam, O’Donnell, Owens, Paullin, Pendarvis, Post, Raymer, Revell, Robins, Shanahan, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Sunny, Taylor, Vopicka, Werno, Wilkins, Young, Zim- mer — 51. Absent — Badenoch, Beilfuss, Cole, Dixon, T. J., Fisher, Fitzpatrick, Haas, Harrison, Jones, Oehne, Patterson, Pow- ers, Rainey, Rinaker, Rosenthal, Seth- ness, Shedd, Swift, Thompson, Walker, White, Wilson — 23. THE CHAIRMAN : Quorum present. Are there any corrections or amendments to the minutes? MR, MacMILLAN: Mr. Chairman, I think the minutes fail to state that I made a motion at the last session, fixing the percentage at 16. THE CHAIRMAN: What is that? MR. MacMILLAN : I think the min- utes fail to show that I made a motion at the last session fixing a percentage for the referendum at 16. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the records be corrected. THE SECRETARY: Mr. MacMillan, on page 409 you will find that motion. MR. MacMILLAN: Thank you. THE SECRETARY: It is there. MR. VOPICKA: Mr. Chairman, I would like to send these motions to the desk. MR. POST: May I make a correc- tion? I will forward it to the desk. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the resolutions by Mr. Vo- picka. The Secretary read the resolutions as they appear hereinafter. December 18 454 1906 THE CHAIRMAN : These matters will be taken up when the appropriate subject is reached. The resolutions of Mr. Yopicka will be taken up when the appropriate subject is reached. The special order tonight is Section 10, Revenue. The Secretary will read it. THE SECRETARY: Page, 53, lower left-hand column, Section 10, Revenue. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman, last night I offered a substitute for Section 1. THE CHAIRMAN : Do you desire to have it read now? MR. SHEPARD : I move its adoption and I desire to have it read at this time. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Convention: Section 1 of this substitute is offered in place of paragraph 1 of the Chapter on Revenue, because it is the same, or supposed to be the same proposition, in its expanded form. Rather, paragraph 1 of the chapter of Revenue, as submitted by the Committee on Procedure, was supposed to represent this section of the substitute motion. This section of the substitute motion — speaking now of Section 1 — is the majority report of the Committee on Revenue of this Convention, with refer- ence to the subject of general taxation, so far as that pertained to the levy of the taxes of the city, for the city, park, school and library purposes. In view of the appointment by the Convention, or by the Chairman upon the order of this Convention, of a com- mittee to ascertain the needs and re- quirements of the several municipal de- partments, this substitute is offered with the percentage left in blank. That per- centage to be taken up and considered and determined upon at a subsequent meeting of this Convention, presumably after that committee has submitted its report to the Convention. With the permission of the Chairman and the gentlemen of the convention, I will take the liberty of explaining the scope of this section 1 of this substitute motion. The first clause provides: ‘ ‘ The City Council of the City of Chi- cago shall annually, in the first quarter of its fiscal year, levy a general tax for all city, school, park and library purposes of such year.” This follows the law that has been in force since 1872, at any rate with ref- erence to the levy of taxes by the City of Chicago for city, school and library purposes. Following the consolidation of several parks of this city and the cre- ation of such parks into a department of the city government, parks, or the levy for park taxes, is also included in this clause. So that the city hereafter, by this clause, shall levy each year the taxes required for city, school, park and li- brary purposes. It is considered by the committee, or at least a majority of it, that the City of Chicago, through its Common Council, should be vested with the authority, as it has been heretofore, to levy for all of its subordinate de- partments. We considered that the city could better afford to meet, distribute the funds available for all purposes, than to leave it for each department, or some of the departments, so to act with ref- erence to themselves, without relation to any needs of the other departments of the city government. So, under this pro- vision, the city will, through its Com- mon Council, levy out of its available fund from general taxes and will dis- tribute for the several departments of the city government. It is considered by the committee that there was no reason why an exception should be made in favor of one depart- ment any more than should be made in favor of another department. The offi- cers in charge of one department may naturally consider that their department is the most important of the municipal activities; but, however that may be, for the permanent, economical, wise adminis- tration of the finances of the city, it is considered that all of these matters December 18 455 1906 should at some time center in one tri- bunal for distribution and for the de- termination of their various needs. Under the present law which has pre- vailed for a generation, the City Coun- cil has levied its taxes and allotted the amounts available for all of its depart- ments : Police Department, Fire De- partment, Department of Public Works, Daw Department and other departments. It has also levied the taxes and fixed the amount to be levied for library pur- poses and for school purposes. The next provision takes up the maxi- mum amount or percentage. By the adoption of this provision we determine that some percentage shall be fixed in the constitution of this city beyond which the tax levying body may not go. We believe that this is a necessary pro- vision in a fundamental law of the city. We believe that it is necessary for the good administration of the city govern- ment, and is a necessary provision for the protection of those who pay the tax. The amount, as I have stated, has been left blank, to be taken up and consid- ered at a later meeting of this Conven- tion. The next provision: “The said City Council, in its annual levy, shall specify the respective amounts levied for the payment of the indebtedness and the amount levied, and interest thereon , f 1 should read, the amount levied for gen- eral city purposes; the amount levied for educational purposes; the amount levied for building purposes; the amount levied for park purposes, and the amount levied for library purposes. Under our present law, some of the municipalities are required in their tax levy to specify in detail the several ob- jects and purposes for its levy. The City of Chicago is now so required to specify for its city purposes. That is, its cor- porate city purposes, strictly speaking. Tt is not so required to specify for school purposes, neither for educational nor for building. It is not so required to speci- fy for library purposes. The laws of the State of Illinois vary widely in this respect. For instance : Road and bridge commissioners levy only a percentage, without specifying either the sum of money in gross, and without specifying any of the objects or purposes for which the money shall or may be ex- pended. Other taxing bodies may levy simply a sum, a gross, without specifying a percentage or without specifying any of the objects and purposes for which the money is levied. This provides that the city in its levy ordinance shall specify these designated items, namely, the amount required for the payment of maturing bonds, the amount required for the interest upon the bonded debt, and the bonded debts of its subordinate bodies, the amount re- quired for general corporate purposes, that is, current expenses, the amount re- quired for park purposes, the amount re- quired for educational purposes, the amount required for school building pur- poses and the amount required for li- brary purposes. That does away with the necessity of the city itemizing its tax levy ordinance, and the several objects and purposes for which the taxes are levied. That is unnecessary. It does no good there to meet the requirement of publicity necessary and demanded in financial affairs, and it simply opens the door for some tax dodger to come in on some one or more of the items of that tax levy. The City Council in its annual appro- priation bill, under the present law, is required to specify in detail, in the most minute detail, the several objects and purposes for which money is appro- priated for its current year. Beyond that appropriation bill the city cannot expend money, nor in violation of the provisions of that appropriation bill, so that the publicity of expenditures and financial transactions is thus obtained in the annual appropriation bill of the December 18 456 1906 City of Chicago, that being published, and anyone who desires may find it and read it and require the city to adhere to its provisions. Besides that, the comptroller of the city, under the present law of the city treasury, is prohibited from authorizing the payment, or pro- viding the payment of any money in vio- lation of the provisions of the annual ap- propriation bill. The next provision provides that 1 1 The county clerk shall extend upon the col- lector’s warrant all of such taxes, sub- ject to the limitation herein contained, in a single column as the City of Chicago tax. ’ 1 Under the present law the county clerk extends in a separate column the City of Chicago tax for city purposes and city bond purposes. The school tax is in an- other column. The library tax in another column, and the park tax in still another column. This requires a great amount of labor on the part of the County Clerk for which the statute has provided a com- pensation of two cents for the exten- sion of each tax. That is, against any one parcel of land there would be a city tax, a park tax, a library tax, and a school tax, which would amount to eight cents. There is no reason why this could not be extended to one column at a cost of two cents to the city instead of eight cents to the city, thus making a saving of from forty to fifty thousand dollars in the expenses of the extension of the city taxes that do no good and furnish no needful information to the city. The tax levy itself specified the respective amount levied for each pur- pose, and the extension of this tax in a separate column creates confusion. If there is any doubt on that I would refer simply to the fact that the county clerk now, for instance, extends the city tax, including the amount levied for bonds in a separate column, and the comptroller must refer to that tax levy in order to separate the items. The present school tax, both for build- ing purposes and for educational pur- poses, is extended in a single column, and the city treasurer and the school board must refer to the tax levies in order to keep the items separate. The extension furnishes no information and they need no information from the tax extension in order to determine the re- spective amounts levied for each pur- pose. The next provision states: “In case the aggregate amount levied, ex- clusive of the amount levied for the payment of bonded indebtedness, and the interest on bonded indebtedness, shall exceed per centum of such excessive value, such excesses shall be disregarded, and the residue only treat- ed and certified for extension.” This is identical with the present law and is put in this as a matter of neces- sity. The levies being made in the early part of the year, being filed with the county clerk, and the assessed value upon which those levies are to be ex- tended not being obtainable until later in the year, the tax levying authority may levy more than the law allows under its limitation at the present time, in such a case the county clerk, under the present law, as provided in this law, shall disregard the excess and treat the residue only as certified for extension. The law simply asking the matter to be validated and legalize the amount authorized to be levied by the munici- pality, and disregarding the surplusage amount unauthorized to be levied. In such a proceeding the act provides: “In such cases all items in such tax levy except those for the payment of bonded indebtedness, and the interest on bonded indebtedness shall be reduced pro rata . ’ * For instance, if the City of Chicago should levy ten million dollars for city purposes and ten million dollars for school purposes, and other sums for park December 18 457 1906 and library purposes, and one or more million dollars was found to be in ex- cess and unauthorized, the county clerk, under the provision of this law, as he does now under the provisions of the present law, would abate pro rata from each tax levy the excess found in the tax levy. THE CHAIRMAN: Wait a minute, Mr. Shepard. I assume it will be the unanimous consent of the Convention that Mr. Shepard shall continue this explanation? MR. POST: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to object to time, but I want to raise a point of order before time is given. If my point of order is not acted upon, of course, I will not object to Mr. Shepard taking all the time necessary, and my point of order, Mr. Chairman, is not a merely momentary one, but goes to the whole course of the proceeding, from now on. To state it briefly it is, that we are now in session, not for the purpose of discussing a code, or for specific legislation. We are in session solely for the purpose of getting an in- formal expression of opinion and a pre- liminary agreement in principle. Now, we have from the committee on rules a line of procedure laid out that is eminently fair for the purpose of bring- ing out a full and free expression of opinion with regard to the principles with which this charter should be built. We have been drifting gradually away from that line of procedure and from the earlier rulings of the Chair with reference to it, until now we have reached a point where we are asked to take up and to consider mere details of legislation in the name of a substitute for a principle. Now, if it were merely — if nothing more were involved than the question in one instance of intro- ducing a substitute which belongs more properly to a future session of the Con- vention, I should not take your time; but there is a great deal more involved. All proceedings in this manner is, in fact, preventing the very culmination that the Committee on Rules sought, and that we, who are in the minority in this Convention, believe we were go- ing to have an opportunity to avail ourselves of. This substitute that is proposed, for example, Mr. President, will have the effect of cutting off any fair consideration of alternative to ten, Nos. 1 and 2, and any fair consideration of No. 7, under alternative 5; and will affect the discussion in one or two other particulars. I submit, Mr. President, to the good sense and fairness, if not the courtesy of the majority of this Con- vention, for it ought at least to ob- serve the spirit of the rules that the Committee on Rules have made. When this Convention first organized I talked with a number of those that felt as I did; who felt they were very much in the minority in this Convention, how- ever they might be in the municipal election at which the work of this Convention is to be presented to the people. We are unanimous in the under- standing that if we found the fairness and openness in the majority of this Convention, we would do all we could, of course, to have our own views adopt- ed, but failing in having our own views adopted, and the spirit of compromise and fairness adopted, we would meet compromise with compromise and fair- ness with fairness; and when the charter was adopted by this Convention and passed by the Legislature, we would do all in our power to secure its adop- tion by the people. Now, I ask this Convention to con- sider whether it is fair to virtually cut off debate. Now, we can say some- thing about these subjects, under that fairness of consideration which this Convention ought to give to the subject matter presented. If we proceed now in the order which the proceedings be- gan we should have taken up this al- December 18 458 1906 ternative to ten and decided a principle, and we should have had a discussion of it, which would have drawn attention from the whole Convention to the core of that principle. In that way we should have gotten a discussion and a decision which would have been a thoughtful decision, and so we should have gone on backward to No. 7, under alternative to 5, and so on to the main question. But if we are to have here offered a substitute in detail form, we are not only anticipating the work of the Convention and doing in this ses- sion what has been set aside for a future session, but we are adopting a course of procedure which will prevent us ar- riving in an orderly way to a prelimin- ary agreement on the principle. I wish to make this point of order, but beyond the point of order I ask this Convention, the majority of those who have the power, to remember that they should consider the rights of the minority, anl give us an opportunity for consideration of the whole subject and the principles involved in the prop- ositions that are laid down by the Buies Committee and not by this substitute to cut off debate on this point. THE CHAIRMAN: What is your point of order? MR. POST : My point of order is that we are in session solely for the purpose of getting an informal expression of opinion and a preliminary agreement in principle upon the chief general out- lines of the proposed charter, and that a specific piece of legislation is out of order at his session, and is out of order until the Committee on Rules has re- ported and we are in session to discuss the final report. MR. GANSBERGEN: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will rule on this point of order first. The Chair is of the opinion that this Con- vention is the sole judge of what is meant by the words “A general agree- ment in principle, ” as laid down in the rules, and there would seem to be no reason why after the reception of Mr. Shepard’s substitute that a motion should not be made to take up the sec- tion as a substitute for that which Mr. Post desires to bring before the house. The Chair will assure the gentleman that opportunity will be given to bring all of these sections before the house. MR. POST: May I be allowed to suggest one thing I overlooked? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MR. POST: If this substitute should be adopted then it takes the place, or it cuts off action practically, direct action upon three or four propositions, because it provides for those very prop- ositions. THE CHAIRMAN: It does not, Mr. Post, unless it should be adopted, and if an opportunity is given to substitute for the very sections proposed by Mr. Shepard, your sections which related to it, the Chair fails to see how they would not be fully recognized. MR. POST: It is going to be rather difficult for us in the minority to sug- gest amendments to a specific piece of legislation, when the amendments are in the form of abstract statements. MR. GANSBERGEN: Mr. Chairman, I desire to state that I am surprised at Mr. Post’s statement, because I thought Mr. Post advocated free discussion of every subject, and I feel that Mr. Shep- ard, who is very well informed on the subject of taxation, having been at- torney in that capacity for a number of years, should address us more at length on the matter, and I would like to ask this Convention to extend the time to Mr. Shepard to give us such enlighten- ment as he has. MR. POST: I am not refusing my consent at all, Mr. Chairman. MR. RAYMER: I rise to a question of information, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Raymer. December 18 459 1906 MR. RAYMER: I would like to ask Mr. Post to whom he is referring when he refers to the minority. I have failed to discover that there was any particular minority in this Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman desires to know whether there is con- sent that Mr. Shepard shall continue his explanation of his section? (Cries of “yes, ” and “leave.”) MR. O’DONNELL: Now, Mr. Presi- dent, can I have a moment? THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. O’Donnell. MR, O’DONNELL: I noticed here in the beginning of Mr. Shepard’s sub- stitute that it is offered as a substitute for Section 1, Chapter 10, Revenue, as printed on page 53. I want to know if that is intendel by Mr. Shepard for every clause in that MR. SHEPARD: Just the first clause. MR. O’DONNELL: Oh, yes. Well, that is all right. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shepard has unanimous leave to continue his re- marks. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen: These are presented in a series of propositions. The first sec- tion does follow the exact draft of the bill reported by the Committee on Rev- enue, but that bill is simply a series of propositions, and I for one thought it was better to present at one time that series of propositions so that the Convention could have before it the whole scheme, rather than to present a single proposition for like considera- tion, and go to this Convention upon a single proposition before it had before it the subsequent propositions that would bear upon it, relate to it or modify it, and perhaps be inconsistent with it. Take, for instance, the question of the limitation. True, in this section is presented a proposition that there shall be a limitation, but the percent- age is left blank. If alternative to No. 1 does provide that there shall be no limitation, if any gentleman of this Convention desires to amend this section by offering alternative to No. 1, which provides that there shall be no limitation at all, I see no reason why he cannot offer that as an amendment, and have the fullest discussion and consideration and action of this Convention upon it. The last clause of Section 1 provides: ‘ 1 The City Treasurer of the City of Chicago shall keep separate funds in conformity to said tax levy, which funds shall be paid out by him upon order of the proper authorities, for the pur- pose only for which the same were levied. ’ ’ That provides, in a word, that the City Treasurer shall keep the amount levied for city corporate purposes in a separate fund, except that it may be modified by the code, that that particu- lar fund shall also be subdivided to conform to the appropriation ordinances. He. shall also keep the park tax in a separate fund, the park bond tax in a separate fund, the interest fund for the tax bonds in a separate, fund, the educational tax in a separate fund, the school builling tax in a separate fund, and the library tax in a separate fund; and that he shall only pay out of these funds upon the order of the proper authorities. That proper authority is not defined precisely here in detail, be- cause it is thought — that is left to the code to provide. MR. ROBINS: I think Mr. Shep- ard should either speak a little louder or talk this way. We cannot hear him. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shepard will take notice. MR. SHEPARD: I will. This contemplates that, for instance: A school fund shall only be paid upon the authority of the Board of Eluca- tion, and such further authority as the code may require. For instance, the code may require that the warrant so December 18 460 1906 drawn by the Board of Education shall also bear the endorsement or counter- signature of the comptroller of the city, as well as the signature of the city treasurer. Like provision is made, or the same provision covers the funds of the other departments of the city go- vernment: Park and Library. I think that, in this brief statement, that covers Section 1 of this substi- tute. I call at this time the attention of the Convention to Section 2, which pro- vides the Board of Education of the City of Chicago shall, in January of each year, prepare and transmit to the City Council a statement of its receipts and expenditures for the preceding cal- endar year, stating therein the sources of its receipts and the several objects and purposes of its expenditures. This same provision in Sections 3 and 4, respectively, requires the Board of Park Commissioners and the Board of Library Directors to do the same thing. And this is put in for the reason that publicity is demanded and required in the matter of accounts and financial transactions of all public officers. At the end of the year, or during the first month of the succeeding year, these departments can then make up a state- ment of their receipts and of their ex- penditures for the preceding year. These, under this provision, to be transmitted to the City Council, where, by operation of the code, they become a part of the proceedings, and if they follow the present practice they would stand referred to the Finance Commit- tee of the City Council. The publicity desired and demanded of public officers is thus, in that simple manner, obtained. Besides any infor- mation respecting the receipts and ex- penditures of the department for the preceding year for the purpose of qudit or check, or for the purposes of infor- mation. The needs of the department for the current year is also obtained. For instance, if a particular depart- ment would lose any revenue from taxes or other sources it would become apparent and would account for the loss or deficit and provide information necessary for the City Council to make good that loss, provide for that loss during the next year. The section also provides: “It shall also prepare and transmit to the City Council in January of each year an estimate of its expenditures for the current calendar year, stating therein the several objects and purposes of such expenditures.” That is also put in for a double purpose: For the purpose of requiring the departments, namely, these three separate departments, the library, the park and the school to set down, as the city now is required to set down, in its annual appropriation bill, the amount of money it expects to expand for its several purposes during that current year. It is also put in this section to provide for and furnish to the City Council the tax levying body, the information ne- cessary for the City Council, through its finance committee, to proceed in- telligently in distributing the available resources derived from general taxes upon the property of the City of Chi- cago, and distributing them to the several departments of the city govern- ment. This, like the other, provides an economical, simple way of obtaining and publishing, and making public this information, in what we consider the easiest and simplest manner, and at the same time the most effective manner. Sections 3 and 4 simply relate in the same manner to the Board of Park Commissioners, and the Board of Lib- rary Directors, respectively. This presents, Mr. Chairman, the scheme for general taxation as we con- December 18 461 1906 sider it should be presented and placed in the constitution of our city govern- ment. It covers these four great de- partments of the city government, the city proper, the library, the school and parks. It concentrates in the elected legislators of the city, in one tribunal, the duty of gathering together the in- formation pertaining to the finances, the receipts and the expenditures of each of its departments, and gives that body the power and places upon that body the responsibility to properly di- vide for each of these departments and distribute the available resources of the City of Chicago. Believing that this is a wise and a a good measure, I move its adoption. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion. It has been moved and seconded that Mr. Shepard’s substitute be abopted as a substitute for Section 1. MR. McGOORTY: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me on this most important matter of revenue, and, considering the number of alternatives which have been offered by the committee, that this Convention should have an oppor- tunity of consider the different proposi- tions in their entirety. And I would move, in pursuance of the suggestion, if not of a rule formulated by the committee on the general plan, that we take up the alternative propositions, commencing with the last alternative, so that the Convention can consider the various alternatives, and havq the bene- fit of a general discussion upon the dif- ferent propositions that have been pre- sented for our consideration. And I would move, therefore, that we com- mence with the last alternative and work back to the first; the three dif- ferent alternatives as one, A, B and C. There is another alternative which re- lates to sectional, and that is alterna- tive X on the bottom of page 7. My only purpose of the motion is that, this being perhaps as important a question as will come before the Convention, it may be felt that everyone has had a fair opportunity of expressing his views on it, and giving any proposition he is interested in, full consideration. MR. SHEPARD: His motion goes to a question of procedure now, and I submit that by consent the procedure has been established by recognizing my motion to adopt Section 1, or this sub- stitute in place of Section 1 as found on page 7. If Mr. McGoorty desires to move the adoption of alternative to 10, which would be an alternative to my substitute, I have not the slight- est objection; or move the adoption of any other section as an amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: That would be the method by which it might be brought before the house, Mr. McGoor- ty. MR. McGOORTY : I don’t know that I do. I don’t know but I am in favor of Mr. Shepard’s resolution. The only objection, if any, is, it comes in the drafted form — I think I favor the draft as presented by Mr. Shepard; but, in pursuance of the suggestion made by Mr. Post that these specific propositions regarding the Board of Education and Library Board, etc., it might be more expedient to have them discussed separately. I don’t wish to oppose Mr. Shepard ’s matter. MR. PENDARYIS: I would sug- gest, Mr. Chairman, that we are pro- ceeding exactly in accordance with the rules of this Convention. If Mr. Shep- ard had used the word * ‘ alternative ” instead of “substitute” this would have been avoided. We are consider- ing it in the natural order, where it should be considered. MR. ROBINS: The thing that oc- curs to me, and doubtless to some other members of this Convention, is that this is not in the nature of an alter- native proposition, but is in the nature of a substitute detailed proposition,. December 18 462 1906 and, as such, it may be the right pro- vision — I don’t know, but I do know that I would like to hear discussion, for instance, upon A, the alternative to 1, which reads: “The limit of the tax rate fixed by the charter shall not ap- ply to taxes levied for school purposes, but taxes shall be levied for school building, and educational purposes as now provided by the law. ’ ’ I have no definite opinion about that, but I have heard a number of people defend that proposition, and I believe that is the present condition of the law. And I don’t see how that would properly be an amendment to this pro- vision of Mr. Shepard, because Mr. Shepard here details his work out on a principle that assumes that the school taxes shall be included in the general levy. All Mr. Shepard wants is that there be a fair discussion and then possibly his detailed statement will be the proper statement, and the one we will all agree to, but it does seem to me, if offered as a substitute at this time, it operates to prevent certain discussion on certain points which doubtless many members of this Convention would be glad to hear, and some participate in. MR. SNOW: I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, that the matter offered by Mr. Shepard is offered as substitute for Section 1. If any member of the Convention desires to discuss any of the substitutes or alternatives which have been previously offered, the way is open very clearly; all he has to do is to offer it as a substitute or amend- ment for Mr. Shepard’s motion, and any member can bring any matter which he desires before the house and discuss it to his heart’s content. MR. POST: How many substitutes can we offer to Mr. Shepard’s substi- tute? THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is in- clined to be exceedingly generous in the matter in order that this entire matter may be brought before the house for discussion. The Chair would suggest that you dispose of them from time to time, so that his memory will not be taxed too much. The Chair is prepared to hear a sub- stitute from Mr. Bennett. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the question raised by Mr. Robins, alternative to 1, a, “The lim- it of the tax rate fixed by the charter shall not only apply to taxes levied for school purposes, but taxes shall be levied for school building and educa- tional purposes as now provided by law. ’ ’ The school taxes are now limited by a general law. There is now a limit, so that this alternative to 1, a, is con- tradictory in itself, that the tax shall be levied as now, and now they are limited. Now, I take it, when we come to fill in the figures for these blanks, we will provide a sum sufficient to care for the schools, parks, the library and the city, and when these questions come up, the amount necessary for each of these departments will be taken into consideration and discussed by the Convention. Then you will get before you the figures. The general scheme as laid out by Mr. Shepard is a simple one, and to my mind a very proper one. Alternative b provides that, * 1 The limit of the tax rate to be fixed by the charter shall not apply to taxes levied for library purposes, but the City Council shall annually levy for library purposes a tax of not less than one mill and not more than one and one half mill on the dollar on all taxable property in the city.” Now, when we come to consider the figures we will decide that question. 1 1 c. The City Council shall have power to levy annually a tax of two December 18 463 1906 mills on the dollar on all taxable pro- perty for a police pension fund. M That question will naturally arise in connec- tion with these figures and in connec- tion with the resolution on police ques- tions which is now pending before the Convention. So, as I understand the question, the proposition as outlined by Mr. Shep- ard does not foreclose going into the question of the proportion to give to each of these bodies, if we shall see fit to decide to have fixed amounts for the taxes. MR. ROBINS: May I ask you a question? As the law is at the present time is it not so that the taxes for school purposes are an exception, and not within the limitations upon city taxes? MR. BENNETT: They are not with- in the limitation of the “Jlml” law, but there is a limitation of two per cent. MR. ROBINS: It is five per cent., is it not? MR. RITTER: Two and a half per cent. MR. BENNETT: Two and a half per cent. MR. ROBINS: Two and a half per cent, each, that is, both buildings and education. Now, as I understand it, under the substitute as submited by Mr. Shepard, that separate exemption, as it were, or privilege, will be abol- ished, and the school taxes will come within the general limitation of the city taxes. Is that not so? MR. BENNETT: That is so under this scheme as laid down by Mr. Shep- ard. I take it, when the figures come in, if this Convention sees fit to separ- ate them it can do so. MR. ROBINS: I only want a dis- cussion. I am not in my own mind clear as to the reasonableness or desir- ability of this separation. There has been such a separation of this kind in the past. It seems to me to be intel- ligently defended by gentlemen who are informed. I simply wish this Con- vention to have some statement before it so that we may put that proposition to a vote. MR. VOPICKA: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask a question. I wanted to ask Mr. Shepard about these funds, thq building fund of the Board of Education. At the present time the law fixes five per cent., I understand, for building purposes MR. SHEPARD: Two and a half per cent. MR. VOPICKA: I hope some rule will be contained in the new charter for one purpose, and that is this: If we do not have that clause in the present law on that grant the money would be squandered; we would have instead of 275 schools, 150 schools. I hope, before this Convention takes action, this will be considered very carefully. MR. BENNETT: If I may be per- mitted to speak again. Mr. Vopicka’s question is that we shall have the school fund kept separate. As one member of this Convention I am equally desirous of having the city rate separ- ate for this reason: Whenever a re- quest is made for an appropriation for school purposes, it is for one of those purposes which the people are always liberal upon; the City Council is al- ways liberal upon, and until we do fix a limit for the schools, in my judg- ment the city in the long run will suffer. Whatever the amount we finally decide upon I hope to see incorporated in this scheme a provision that the city fund will be separate from the school fund. MR. RITTER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Shepard, as a matter of information, whether the division of this maximum is to be made and fixed, or whether the City December 18 464 1906 Council Finance Committee is to make a division of the maximum each year. I don’t know whether he understands that question. • MR. SHEPARD: This provides that the levy shall be made by the City Council. MR. ROBINS: Yes, that is what it says. MR. SHEPARD: That is the pres- ent law. MR. RITTER: Yes, but MR. ROBINS: A portion of it. MR. SHEPARD: That is the pres- ent law. MR. RITTER: But I am informed that there is a committee at work on the question of the division of this five per cent., or four and a half of the present maximum, among the different bodies. Am I correct? MR. SHEPARD: There is a com- mitee appointed by the Chairman of this Convention MR. RITTER: Yes. MR. SHEPARD: to gather in- formation as to receipts and expendi- tures, or interests and needs of the various departments. Now, just what report they will make, of course I cannot forecast but the percentage in this proposition is left blank so that we will not anticipate in any way their report. MR. RITTER: I don’t think you have got my question. Will the di- vision of the funds be fixed; that is, the proportionate division of the funds be fixed now, or will the City Council each year say that out of this four and a half per cent, the Board of Educa- tion shall get one per cent., say, and the city shall get two per cent, and another body a half of one per cent? Will that be gone through with each year, or will this charter provide that whatever the maximum taxation, the Board of Education shall be entitled to so much of it, and the other bodies to so much of it? MR. ROBINS: Every year? MR. SHEPARD : This provision provides that the city shall make a levy. MR. RITTER: Each year MR. SHEPARD: Each year. The appropriation of the amounts available for each department, with the excep- tion of the parks, will be provided for. The City Council has always done that. MR. RITTER: Thank you. MR. EIDMANN: It might be well for Mr. Shepard to tell us what is the maximum rate for the city, for the Library Board and for the Park Board at the present time; and also what limitation of the local taxes is for this taxation at the present time. MR. SHEPARD: I would be very glad to answer that question, but I suggest that goes to the question of the maximum limitation, which is not in- volved' in this proposition. You will notice this is left blank. For instance, it is to be four and a half, four or five, or some other amount. That is not involved in the motion to adopt this proposition, and I cannot furnish that information. MR. EIDMANN: I had refer- ence to the present limitation of the tax under the present revenue law. What are the limits on the Board of Education? what are the limits on the city? what are the limits on the Park Board? and what are the limits on the Library Board? MR. SHEPARD: The present lim- itations, as I remember them, are as follows: The West Park Board, $1.25 on each $100.00 assessed value, which includes all provision for the payment of maturing bonds and interest on bonded debt, and current corporate purposes. The limitation on the City Council, the present limitation, is two per cent, for corporate purposes, plus December 18 465 1906 the amount required for maturing bonds, and the interest on bonded debt. The limitation upon the Board of Edu- cation for — on the City Council for school purposes, is two and a half per cent, for building purposes, and two and a half per cent, for educational purposes; those items respectively em- bracing all expenditures under those respective heads, including bonds and interest, if there are any. I think that is all — oh, the library. The present library limitation is one mill, or ten cents, on each $100.00 of assessed value. I will again suggest that that goes to the consideration, Mr. Eidmann, if I may suggest it — to the consideration of the maximum rate to be placed in this blank, if such a rate is determined on, or any rate is determined on; and it should come up for consideration then, and is really not apropos to the discussion of this resolution. MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Chairman, I am unusually dense, for I have to ask another question. As I understand it, under your resolution, the City Council has the power to divide the taxes up in any way it sees fit? MR. SHEPARD: Yes, sir. MR. McCORMICK: Well, the pres- ent status is that the present law fixes the maximum for each individual body, and even if the School Board could not use its full tax the city could not get hold of it. MR. SHEPARD: That is correct, and under the provisions of this draft the city could not get the use, nor the school or the library, or the park money. The tax levied is to be held sacred for the purpose for which it was levied, and expended for no other purpose. True, under the present law there are individual limitations; but those limitations, while they are with- in the powers, so far as levying taxes are concerned, of the City Council — while the City Council under these lim- itations may not go beyond two and a half per cent, for educational purposes, they may levy as much less than that amount as it in its wisdom determines is advisable. MR. McCORMICK: Under your plan the city can levy three per cent, for school purposes by deducting a half per cent, somewhere else, cannot it? Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not see how we are going to ge$ at this thing in an intelligent way unless those gentle- men who are particularly informed in the various branches would be so kind as to instruct the rest of us who are not informed in those branches. For instance, a few of us know a little about the finances of the city, or such as pass through the annual appropria- tion bill in the council. At the same time, those same men may not know very much about the situation in the schools; they may not know very much about the situation of the Library Board. It would give me a great deal of pleasure if the president of the School Board w T ould tell us what his situation is-. I do not know, for in- stance, how much money the School Board gets from its real estate, and what changes it will make in future years; or whether it will like to have a special accommodation in the way of bonded indebtedness. I think we would be glad to hear some information from the members of the Library Board and Park Board as well. MR. BENNETT: Mr. ( hairman, I wish to say that the Commitee on Revenue appointed at the last meeting has made up a scheme for gathering together, or getting together, the in- formation sought for by Mr. McCor- mick. The various park boards, the Library Board and the School Board have been requested to furnish this committee with information as to its present — as to their present expendi- ture; and also as to their views upon December 18 466 1906 the future needs, the increasing needs of these vast departments. Now, when these figures are all gathered together, which they will be at an early date, they will be presented to this Conven- tion in a simple form, so that this whole question will be before each member of the Convention in a way that he can understand it fully. It will not only take into consideration the present ex- penditures but the future needs of the city in all these departments, both in reference to the ordinary expenses and to the permanent improvements which should be paid for out of bonds. All that information will be furnished you at an early date. ME. MEEEIAM: Mr. Chairman, in order to have this — if this is in order — I move to postpone the consideration of the alternative to 1, a, b, c, until such time as the blank rate shall be fixed by the Convention. THE CHAIRMAN : Until what time? ME. MEEEIAM: Until such time as the blank per centum shall be filled in on the recommendation of this com- mittee for the action of the Conven- tion. It is impossible to discuss the matter of how much you want on the schools, the park and the library in- telligently until you know what is the maximum rate. Otherwise, a discussion of that will be for no purpose except to consume the time of this Conven- tion. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion that consideration of alter- natives a, b and c be deferred until such time as the committee brings in its report. ME. MEEEIAM: I would like to in- clude in that, if there is no objection, No. 2, which provides for the levy of one per cent, additional. That also would be along the lines of blank dis- cussion until we know the rates. We could not vote intelligently on that. THE CHAIRMAN: A, b and c and No. 2. Will you yield your motion? ME. SHEPARD: I second the mo- tion and yield mine. THE CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and seconded that a, b and e and No. 2 of Section 10 be deferred until the report of the Revenue Commit- tee is received by this Convention. MR. WERNO: I would suggest that Mr. Shepard’s alternative go over and be taken up at the same time as the substitute. ME. SHEPARD: That is not in- volved at all. I may state to Mr. Wer- no — MR. WERNO: I thought yours was a substitute for this Section 1. MR. SHEPARD: It is, but it does not touch upon the particular proposi- tion involved in the particular alterna- tives a, b and c and No. 2. Those go to the specific things with reference to the amount, and you will notice that the amount of the percentage is left blank in my resolution; so that those specific propositions may be considered separately. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would like to suggest that a, b and c are really not alternatives to No. 1, but they are really separate propositions, as far as I am able to read them; and No. 2 is a separate proposition. They are really four different propositions. Are you ready for the question upon Mr. Merriam ’s motion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. A, b and c and No. 2 are de- ferred until the report of the Revenue Committee. The question is now upon Mr. Shep- ard ’s motion to substitute his resolu- tion for No. 1. MR. POST: Mr. Chairman, will a substitute to that substitute be now in order? THE CHAIRMAN: Sir? December 18 467 1906 MR. POST: Will a substitute to that substitute be in order now? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MR. POST: Then I will offer as a substitute, in order that we may bring under discussion, if the Convention de- sires to discuss it, alternative X on page 4. MR. ROBINS: That is alternative to 10? MR. POST: Alternative to 10 on page 54. Mr. Shepard’s substitute is for Section 1 of 10, so that alterna- tive to 10 would be in order, I iniagine. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Post moves to substitute alternative to No. 10 for Mr. Shepard’s substitute to No. 1. The Secretary will read Mr. Post’s sub- stitute. MR. POST: I have one word to offer on that. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. THE SECRETARY: Page 54, lower left hand corner, alternative to 10. MR. POST: Mr. Chairman, I have a word or two to offer, simply in explana- tion of the principle and purpose of that proposed substitute. When the constitutional amendment under which we are acting was presented to the people, the appeal that was made was that Chicago ought to have local self- government. That was the cry under which the amendment was carried, and, without creating that impression, I doubt if the amendment could have been car- . ried. Now, that amendment clearly intended, if it intended anything at all, that the City of Chicago should have local self- government, with regard to taxation especially. It was declared in the amendment that its purpose was to pro- vide for a scheme or charter of local municipal government for the territory now or hereafter to be embraced within the limits of the City of Chicago. And in order that there might be local self- government, this same amendment pro- vided for the assessment of property, the levy and collection of taxes within said city for corporate purposes by the city itself, with only a single limitation, and that limitation was that the city should act in accordance with the principles of equality and uniformity prescribed by the state constitution. Now, subject to the United States con- stitution, and to the state constitution, with reference to principles of uniform- ity and equality, I submit that it was the desire of this amendment that the City of Chicago should have full power of governing itself with reference to taxation. We cannot have local self- government without that. It would be a mere platitude to say that the power of taxation is the center of all power; that if you lodge the power of taxation any- where else than in the City of Chicago itself, you are depriving the City of Chi- cago of local self-government. It is upon that ground and in harmony with that principle that I propose this substitute in order that the City of Chi- cago may govern itself with reference to taxation, subject only to those provisions which guard against confiscation, the provisions of the constitution of the United States, and that provision still in- tact of the constitution of the State of Illinois which requires that all taxation shall be equal and uniform. MR. MERRIAM: Mr. Chairman, when the Convention was discussing the matter of municipal home rule, I think I advocated as strongly as anyone a broad and liberal grant of power to the City of Chicago in strictly local and municipal affairs. But at that time I also indi- cated that there were certain things which ought to be excepted, and laid down the principle as I recall it, that while the grant of power ought to be broad and general, yet there was room if there should be certain definite re- strictions and limitations placed upon the city. I regard certain financial re- strictions and limitations and safe- December 18 468 1906 guards upon the power of the city as essential parts of the city charter. I think it is highly necessary to have at the present time a minimum of the bonded debt incurring power of the city, and in fact that is provided for by the constitutional amendment of 1904. And, I think it is equally desirable to have at the present time a minimum upon the tax rate, and there are other limitations pro- vided for in those resolutions respecting the financial power of the city. It seems to me that these are wise and desirable. In many states we find that the limit of the tax rates in the cities is not only provided for by the general law but is even embodied in the constitution itself as a fixed and definite rate for taxation which can be changed only by means of a constitutional amend- ment. I shall therefore be compelled to op- pose a proposition to give to the City of Chicago unlimited taxation or unlimited power with respect to certain other forms of local revenue. It seems to me here is a point where definite restrictions and limitations of this character are desira- ble. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any fur- ther discussion upon Mr. Post’s motion? (The question was called for.) THE CHAIRMAN: If not, the Sec- retary will call the roll upon Mr. Post’s motion. He will read alternative to 10, and then will call the roll upon Mr. Post’s motion. The Secretary read alternative to 10, 1, appearing at page 54. Yeas — Linehan, Post, Smulski — 3. Nays — Baker, Beebe, Bennett, Bros- seau, Brown, Church, Clettenberg, Crilly, Ritter, Dever, Dixon, G. W. ; Eckhart, B. A. ; Eckhart, J. W. ; Eidmann, Erick- son, Gansbergen, Guerin, Hill, Hoyne, Hunter, Kitttleman, Lathrop, Lundberg, MacMillan, McCormick, McGoorty, Mc- Kinley, Merriam, O ’Donnell, Owens, Paullin, Pendarvis, Raymer, Revell, Shanahan, Shepard, Snow, Sunny, Tay- lor, Yopicka, Werno, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 44. (During roll call.) MR, O’DONNELL: Mr. Chairman, I want to say something on this question. I think that both of these sections differ. One here is for the purpose of having the charter give to the city the power to raise revenue necessary to carry on the municipal works in different ways here. The other one points out merely a rule for carrying that into effect. I cannot see how they conflict at all, or how one can supply the place of the other. Now, this amendment of Mr. Post’s, this alternative provides the charter shall rest in the City Council, all power of legislation regarding all forms of reve- nue to be raised within the city for mu- nicipal purposes, that the General As- sembly has power to delegate to the city. In other words, the forms of taxing, licensing different business or profes- sions ; taxing wheeled vehicles, for in- stance. And such general powers regard- ing the forms of revenue to be raised within the city for municipal purposes, while Mr. Shepard’s amendment pro- vides what they shall do, what reports they shall make, what forms they shall carry out in ascertaining the amount necessary for the different municipal purposes. I can see wherein the amendment on the substitute of Mr. Shepard’s differs entirely from this alternative to 10. Both can be adopted with a great deal of propriety, because they do not con- flict in any way at all, but will be con- current with one another. I thought I would call that to the at- tention of the Convention; that is the way those two sections strike me. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll. MR. BROSSEAU: Mr. Chairman, I desire to be recorded as voting no. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brosseau votes no. THE SECRETARY : Brosseau, no. December 18 469 1906 THE CHAIRMAN : Upon Mr. Post ’s motion to substitute alternative to 10, for the substitute of Mr. Shepard the yeas are 3 and the nays are 44, and the motion is lost. The motion is now upon the adoption of Mr. Shepard’s substitute for No. 1. Upon that the Secretary will call the roll. MR. RITTER: Mr. Chairman, I sin- cerely hope this Convention will con- sider that matter a little further before deciding to take the building fund of the schools away from its present situa- tion, and locking it up with the other taxes. I believe that one of the wise provisions of our present revenue law. I am sure without that restriction there will be less building done, as Mr. Vopic- ka has said, less school building in Chi- cago. In fact, I know this year, with the pressure for improvements in the educational department, there were times, if our funds had been in one general account, the building fund would suffer. The situation in Chicago today is, that we have not enough schools by probably one hundred to properly house the chil- dren. We are obliged to put 68 in some, school rooms. The only way you will ever overcome that and give the children a square deal is to properly pro- tect their building fund. Now, the pres- ent law puts that building fund outside of the provisions of the so-called Juul law. I think Mr. Shepard did not make that quite clear. We are allowed two and a half per cent for educational purposes which come within the provisions of the limitation law, and this year the Board of Education got one and six-tenths of its two and a half for strictly educa- tional purposes. Tt is also authorized by law to levy not to exceed two and a half per cent, for building purposes. It has never asked for that. This year it asked for .64 of 1 per cent, of the City Council, and that is very low. Now, I believe that you should take some account of that feature of the present situation and provide for a build- ing fund separate from the regular ac- count. When we come to make up our annual budget there is a cry for this building fund, and for kindergarten and vacation school and playgrounds and im- provements to playgrounds, and other things that are gradually putting a big- ger burden on the educational account. The parental school, for instance, cost- ing $400 a year for each pupil, and all coming out of that fund. I think you should take action to pro- tect the building fund. I am not well enough versed in the procedure here to know how to go about getting such a change in Mr. Shepard’s proposition. MR. BENNETT : The proposition under discussion by Mr. Ritter is car- ried over under alternative to 1 a, laid over for future consideration and will be considered, as I understand it, later. MR. RITTER. If this provision is adopted, of Mr. Shepard’s, as I under- stand, it provides that the building ac- count and educational account shall be included in the limited account, and so states. MR. BENNETT: But, Mr. Chair- man, there is no amount fixed, and when this whole subject is brought before the Convention those blnaks can be filled in, and the question now raised by Mr. Rit- ter can be settled by the Convention. MR. RITTER: Mr. Shepard advised that a division of the fund be made each year by the City Council. I believe that provision is bad, at least as far as it relates to the building fund. I wish the charter to distinctly provide that a certain amount of money be set aside each year for school building purposes, permanent improvements. MR. ROBINS: I agree with the posi- tion taken by the president of the school board, and under the assurance that that matter is to come up Jater, I feel sure December 18 470 1906 it will come up, and I think it better be passed for the time being. MR. O’DONNELL: Is it true, Mr. Ritter, that there is now a surplus in your building fund and that the educa- tional fund is short, and that you are borrowing money for your educational fund and paying interest on it, or vice versa? MR. RITTER: Absolutely not, Mr. O ’Donnell. The building fund is as low today as the educational fund. We are building school buildings, thirty-five. We don ’t borrow from the building fund at the present time. THE CHAIRMAN: Any further dis- cussion upon Mr. Shepard’s substitute? The Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Baker, Beebe, Bennett, Bros- seau, Brown, Burke, Church, Clettenberg, Crilly, Dever, Dixon, G. W. ; Eckhart, B. A.; Eckhart, J. W.; Eidmann, Erickson, Gansbergen, Guerin, Hill, Hoyne, Hun- ter, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, Lund- berg, MacMillan, McCormick, McGoor- ty, McKinley, Merriam, O ’Donnell, Owens, Paullin, Pendarvis, Post, Ray- mer, Revell, Shanahan, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Sunny, Taylor, Yopicka, Werno, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 47. Nays — Ritter — 1. (During roll call.) MR. POST: Mr. President, I under- stand that, so far as the points raised by Mr. Ritter are concerned, Alderman Ben- nett ’s explanation is the correct expres- sion of the body of the Convention, and with that understanding I vote aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the mo- tion to substitute, the ayes are 47, and the nays are 1. The motion is carried. Alternatives to la, b and c, and 2, having been temporarily passed, the Secretary will read 3 a. The Secretary read 3 a. THE CHAIRMAN: What will you do with this section? MR. MERRIAM: I move the adop- tion of 3 a. THE CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and seconded that 3 a be adopted. All those in favor signify by saying aye; opposed, nay. Carried. THE CHAIRMAN : The Secretary will read b. The Secretary read b. MR. MERRIAM : I move that 3 b be not concurred in. THE CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and seconded that 3 b be not con- curred in. All those in favor signify by saying aye; opposed, nay. The motion to non-concur is carried. The Secretary will read 4 a. The Secretary read 4 a. MR. G. W. DIXON : I move the adoption of 4 a. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dixon moves the adoption of 4 a. MR. SHEPARD: I desire to offer an amendment and, if possible, Mr. Dixon may adopt it. MR. DIXON: If you make it strong- er, I will. MR. SHEPARD : I offer it as an amendment, that the income therefrom shall be used for the improvement of streets and alleys of the city, or re- pair of the streets and alleys of the city. I make that at the request of some of the teaming interests of the city, who, I understand, heretofore opposed the wheel tax, and joined in this that the income is to be used for the repair of the streets and alleys exclusively. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the amendment of Mr. Shepard that the funds so derived shall be used for the maintenance of the streets and alleys of this city, exclusively. MR. DIXON : I accept that. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor of the amendment signify by saying aye; opposed, nay. Carried as amended. Read alternative to 5. The Secretary read alternative to 5. MR. MERRIAM: Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of the alternative to December 18 471 1906 5, and to fill in the blank per cent by the insertion of the figures 50. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Merriam moves the adoption of the alternative to No. 5, in lieu of 5, and that the blank be filled in by 50, to read 50 per cent, of the cost of repaving of streets and alleys. MR. EIDMANN: Who will pay the other 50 per cent.? MR. MERRIAM: Fifty per cent, by general taxation. MR. EIDMANN : Have you any idea of what it costs the City of Chicago at the present time? MR. MERRIAM: I was about to present some figures on that. Mr. Eid- mann inquires particularly in regard to the cost of such a provision. I have taken from the cards in the Board of Lo- cal Improvement office the amount of street paving during the years 1904 and 1905. Those figures are not contained in their published report. They show that the amount of street paving figured in 1904 amounted to $3,200,000.00, in round numbers, of which for the purpose of replacing prior pavement, there was expended $2,288,000.00, or 71 per cent, of the cost of street pavement, was for pavement that had already been laid. And in 1905 the total work completed for street paving was $3,800,000.00, of which $2,150,000.00 was in the form of expen- diture for the relaying, or repavement, of streets. This made an average per- centage for two years of 66.3 per cent, of the entire amount expended for street pavement, expended for the purpose of repavemnt. Now, the average cost, and for this period of two years, for the repavement, for the pavement of 50 per cent, by the city, would be $1,109,000.00, in round numbers. That might increase the amount of the street paving. The amount of street paving increases as the years go on. It might also be true that the cost of paving would increase, be- cause of the character of the paving. If the figures for those two years hold good for a continuous period of time, the annual cost might perhaps be estimated at about $1,500,000.00. Assuming that the city pays 50 per cent, of the cost of repaving street pavements. This does not include the sidewalks or sewers, or any other form of improvement, for which special assessment is levied. I do not favor very many restrictions in the grant of power by the State Legis- lature to the City of Chicago. It seems to me this is one of the places where the law may well step in and compel the City of Chicago, under the circum- stances, to pay a portion of the expenses of repavement. The price of the original pavement and certainly not all of the cost of the repavement, but assuming that the pavement has once been laid practically at the cost of the property owners, thereafter at least 50 per cent, or more, if the city cared to and had the money, more might be paid. But if, for example, we were to provide that the city pay all of the cost of repavement, you would let loose a carnival of log rolling, because all of the streets in the city would want to be repaved, and we would have a continuous struggle with the City Council as to which ones of those would be paved first, because you could not favor all of them. That was the law at one time, as I understand it, and was repealed because of difficulties that were experienced with it. To my mind, the matter of special as- sessments upon real property is perhaps the most serious part of the revenue sit- uation in Chicago. It is serious in that it lays a very heavy burden upon the property owner; not only heavy, but un- certain. You know not when or where or how a special assessment will strike, or how hard it will strike. In view of the general poverty of the city, this evil has been further here ex- aggerated by the fact that after a pave- ment is once laid the city had no funds, or practically no funds to appropriate December 48 472 1906 for the purposes of repair, and, conse- quently, a pavement having been laid, it was very likely to rot within a very few years. No sooner does the pavement rot or wear out, than an additional spe- cial assessment is levied covering the en- tire cost, or part of the cost of repaving. I think the heavy special assessment and the uncertainty of the special assess- ments, failure of the city to appropriate money, and the absence of money for that purpose has done a great deal to depress, in the first place, the general level of the value of property in the City of Chicago ; and then, in the second place, to depress the tax rate, because real property paying the bulk of taxa- tion has felt the burden of special as- sessment, and has, therefore, demanded a low tax rate. They have resisted the pressure for a higher tax rate, because it has been evident to them that they have been burdened by this special form of assessment, which has been in reality a source of an additional tax rate. So that the burden fixed on a given piece of property could be found only by add- ing to the regular tax rate this extra rate in the way of special assessment. So that we have a low valuation of the property because of this burden, and you have, secondly, a low rate, figured on a low valuation, and it leaves the city poor. If the city is poor it does not have power to appropriate for repairs, conse- quently our pavement wears out very rapidly. So that we go round and round in a circle, out of which we are unable to come except by the city bearing the burden at large. The effect of this would be to increase the budget of the city, because it would require an expendi- ture of a considerable sum of money. In the second place, the effect would be to increase, it ought to be to increase the value of real estate, by taking away this burden of special assessment, and the burden of assessment is taken away and valuation arises, and then you ought to increase the taxes on that very valua- tion and bring in a larger revenue to the city. This percentage may not be right. Perhaps you may have some higher, or some lower, but it seems to me to pre- sent fairly the issue that it involves. ME. EIDMANN: I would like to ask Mr. Merriam the amount the public has benefitted from ME. MEBEIAM : What those amounts are? Alderman Bennett did that; I don’t know. Alderman Bennett can tell you that. ME, BENNETT: From 10 to 25 per cent, of the cost of pavement. I have been in happy accord with the idea of having the city stand a larger proportion of the cost of making im- provements. The figures as to the amount of paving done, as given by Professor Merriam, agree substantial- ly with those which I have, but I don ’t think he is correct when he says it will take $1,100,000.00 per annum to keep up this cost. In view of the fact that the city steps in and pays half of the cost of those improvements will re- sult in people consenting more readily to assessment. ME, MEBEIAM: I don’t estimate it at that. I estimate it at one million and a half. ME. BENNETT: The fact that the taxpayer is relieved to that extent will make him more willing to submit to a special assessment, and we will have to increase the cost on that account. Let us assume, and I think it is a fair as- sumption, that that sum will be equal to at least two million dollars a year. If we get a tax rate for city purposes, just for city property, the 2 per cent. — that is, probably all we will get if we start to limit the tax rate— this item alone will consume substantially all that in- crease. Substantially all the increase we get. We now get 1.80, and that increase would be $1,600,000.00, if I have it right. It would be $800,000.00, so that this item alone will more than consume December 18 473 1906 the increase in our taxes, provided we fix a rate for the city at 2 per cent., and if we are talking about 4% per cent, limit, or 5 per cent, limit, that would be all we will get. So that it occurs to me that before filling this blank we should have before us the facts from which we can form a reasonable conclusion on this subject; and I would therefore suggest that Mr. Merriam would refer the fill- ing of the blank and pass the order, as the sense of this Convention, I think that would be the proper order at the present time. ME. YOPICKA: Mr. Chairman, in connection with this No. 5, I believe the motion made by Alderman Bennett is right. We have the opening of the streets and we have the widening of the streets in Chicago. It will take for im- provements of this kind from five to fifteen million dollars. My opinion is this, gentlemen, that if a street is to be opened, or widened, for the benefit of all the people of Chicago, that they all ought to pay toward it, and for that rea- son I would like to see a clause put in the charter which would read as fol- lows: That if a public street should be widened or opened, that we have a special tax for the purpose, and I believe the property owners on that street ought to pay 10 per cent, of the assessment and 90 per cent, should be spread all over the City of Chicago. Gentlemen, you cannot make an improvement of that kind — under no circumstances can you do it — because there is objection by the property owners, objection by the court, and the law itself prohibits anything of that sort. I would ask the committee to consider it very carefully, and I hope that the gentlemen will see it in the same light as I do. It is unjust, gentlemen, and it should not be permitted. You cannot make distinction and make one lot cheap- er and make another assessment lower. You must place on them both the same assessment. That is one thing. The second is that there are so many inter- ested in the opening of the streets that they are always protesting against an assessment. It is just like a railroad company. They have to bear a big share of the expense and they protest against assessment. Second, there is the division of Halsted street. There are lots in Hal- sted street worth $25,000 a lot on one side, and on the other side they are only worth $2,000. The assessment provides that frontages facing Halsted street must pay 42 per cent., and that means the assessment is from $3,000 to $4,000 on each side. That is between Sixteenth and Twenty-second streets, on Halsted, inside lot. So the $25,000 lot is assessed from three to four thousand dollars on that lot. You know how unjust it is to make an assessment of that kind. I hope, gentlemen, you will take into con- sideration in this charter this law which I offer here, and we will get more im- provements. In connection with that I offer the resolution. I believe that the amount of assessment for the widening of a street is so large that it is im- possible to pay for it in five years. I ask that the whole affair and my resolution be sent to the committee that has this in charge. THE CHAIRMAN: What is that? MR. YOPICKA: The committee that you appointed already. THE CHAIRMAN: You wish it de- ferred ? MR. YOPICKA: Referred to them and then bring in the report, and when they bring in the report, to consider it. THE CHAIRMAN: It will be printed in the proceedings and taken up on the report of the committee. MR. B. A. ECKHART: Mr. Chair- man, I am in favor of the resolution of- fered by Professor Merriam. I believe that a certain percentage of the cost of repaving streets and alleys ought to be assessed for the public benefit, and the general public pay for such improvement December 18 474 1906 from the general fund. I think that on the question of revenue required to make these improvements, considerable will probably be derived from some of the provisions that you propose to incorpor- ate in the proposed new charter. For instance, you have just adopted a pro- vision that the City Council shall also have the power to tax or license all ve- hicles used upon the streets of the city, or any particular class of such vehicles. There is no doubt but what a large reve- nue will be derived from that source, which can be used for the payment of these improvements in our streets and al- leys. You have also adopted here, with- out any discussion, 3 a. If this provision which you have rec- ommended to the legislature is embodied in your proposed charter, you can derive revenue enough to do almost anything. You can pave all your streets and alleys without assessing the abutting property owners. But, aside from the question as to how you will provide the revenue to make these improvements, it seems to me it is unfair and unjust and inequitable to the property owners when he once pays for the improvements of the street to re- quire him in a few, years thereafter to again submit to a special assessment for the repaving of the streets. The property owner in question may not use the street at all himself. He may not pass along the street. The general public uses the street and wears out the pavement. I think that it is only fair that after he has paid for the first improvement the general public ought to pay a large per- centage — I go further than Professor Merriam, I would make it 75 per cent, of the cost, instead of 50. The parks of this City of Chicago have for years assessed the property owners fronting on the boulevard or street which was taken over by the park board for boulevard purposes, and after the first assessment is paid for by the property owner the parks maintain the boulevard and keep it in repair, and repave it when it requires re- paving. I think that principle is a just one, and it ought to apply to the streets and alleys of the City of Chicago. MR. HOYNE: Mr. Chairman, I am going to accept Professor Merriam ’s proposition as a compromise. I am op- posed utterly to special assessments of any kind; I do not think they are fair. As my friend, Mr. Eekhart, has said, you take the boulevards, and there a man pays there the original cost of the pavement of his walk, and the boulevard, and the commissioners after that keep them in repairs. By the very fact of making those streets boulevards you drive off from the streets the heavy teams and they come over on to your street who are not so fortunate as to own a lot upon a boulevard, and these same teams and trucks wear your pave- ment out for which you are assessed. Now, that does not look to me like a square deal. Another thing, we have a member of this Convention who at one time was city attorney, and he made a report to the Board of Aldermen, and I would like to ask the aldermen if they ever read the city attorney’s report. In that re- port he states that 72 per cent, of the damage suits against the City of Chi- cago arise from defective and ill-re- paired walks, and that there is enough money paid out in damage suits to keep in repair every street and alley and walk in the City of Chicago, so I cannot see where this extra amount is going to come in to repair these walks under Professor Merriam ’s amendment. As I say, I accept it as a compromise; it is 50 per cent. I was in favor of doing away with it entirely because it is a great burden upon the outlying prop- erties. It is all right for the business property down town here, but you take the small owner of property in the out- lying districts and it is a heavy burden to them, and very often means confisca- December 18 475 1906 tion. For that reason I am in favor of Professor’s Merriam’s resolution. ME. SMULSKI : Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer a substitute to alternative to 5; I just scribbled this off and will correct it before I hand it to you. (Mr. Smulski’s substitute will be found in pending matter.) ME. SMULSKI: Now, Mr. Chair- man, and gentlemen of the Convention, I believe it is unfair to the property owner to make him pay for any repave- ment or any re-improvement of any pub- lic thoroughfare. I have had consider- able experience in the city attorney ’s office with what it has cost the City of Chicago for damage suits because of bad streets and defective sidewalks. In less than six years I believe the City of Chi- cago has paid nearly $5,000,000 in dam- ages to persons who have been injured by virtue of defective sidewalks and de- fective streets. Now, the streets are de- fective for the reason that the property owner will continue to fight a special as- sessment as long as the law will permit him to. Ninety-nine times out of a hun- dred the property owner is not interested in the condition of the street except as far as it is necessary for ingress and egress to his own home, and a great many people who have vacant property in the city will fight a special assessment for years ; and under the present laws the property owners are able to fight off special assessments year after year until sometimes it takes as many as five or six years before a public improvement can be made. T had that experience in the City Coun- cil, where we tried to pave a certain street in the old Sixteenth ward, and it took us, I believe, six years to accom- plish that fact; and the only reason for that was that the people had paid for the paving of that street once before and they were against paying for it again. You take one thoroughfare on the northwest side of the City of Chicago, Milwaukee avenue, and you can go to the record of the Board of Local Im- provements and you will find that the street has been repaved at least five times in the last twenty-five years. I would say four times, and I know the time; and I remember when one of the property owners of that street came to me and showed me his bills and he re- ceived notice of a new assessment for the paving of that street before he had fin- ished paying for the last assessment for the previous pavement. That is the rea- son why property owners will fight, and go to court and come back against the special assessment law. Now, I believe it is only fair to the property owners of this city when they once have placed a street contiguous to which they own property and have turned it over to the municipality in a proper condition, well paved and in a good condition, that from that time on it is the duty of the municipality, or the public in general to keep that street in proper repair. Now, you might imagine that it is a great expense. It would entail a great expense to keep these streets in repair. I tell you it would be but a small ex- pense if the work was done at the proper time, if you do not permit your streets to go to pieces. Just as soon as a pave- ment was beginning to decay or was be- ginning to show any wear and tear, that the superintendent of the respective ward be instructed to go and repair the break. If the superintendents of the streets had the authority and if the City Council would appropriate the necessary fund, I believe that with less than one- tenth of the cost of the present repave- ment of streets we would keep the streets in proper condition. It is a question that we must not pass over lightly, because it is a very grave question. It tends to the physical condi- tion of our city. The streets of Chicago today are known throughout the entire country as being the worst paved streets anywhere, not only in this country, but December 18 476 1906 in any other country, and one of the rea- sons and one of the causes of that condi- tion is the system of special assessments we pursue in this city, and the unwilling- ness of public officials to attend to their duty, the unwillingness of men who should look after the physical conditions of the streets and alleys of this city, to do their work properly. Now, I believe if this subject is taken up by this Convention, if you will give it more study, and if you will devise some means whereby this improvement can be had, whereby this charter will provide just for the very thing that I asked for in my amendment, I believe you will go further towards improving the physical condition of Chicago than anything else you can do in this Convention. I have had so much experience with bad streets and bad sidewalks, that I be- lieve it is one of the most essential works of this Convention. As I have stated be- fore it has cost the City of Chicago mil- lions of dollars in damages for no other reason than for the ill-paved and defec- tive sidewalks of the city. Mr. Chair- man, I present the substitute which I have just read for alternative to 5. MR. O’DONNELL: Mr. Chairman, this is no new matter in this country. It has been recognized now in several of the cities. In little Detroit down here I will read from the digest of city char- ters. It says: “The council of Detroit has power to assess the cost of local im- provements on property benefitted ac- cording to frontage, but the city must pay for repairing and repaving out of the general road fund. ’ ’ And so in Den- ver, and so in San Francisco, and I think in Baltimore, and some other cities the same rule appertains. The greater portion where a percentage is fixed is paid by the public. About two years ago I represented the property owners on Milwaukee avenue between Chicago avenue and Ashland avenue. They were contesting the pave- ment of Milwaukee avenue. They said that it was paved about six years prior to that time, and that some of them had just got through paying for the assess- ment for paving the street just the year before. An improvement association was interested. It was the improvement association that retained myself, and there was a goodly number of them all owning property abutting the street or immediately adjoining. We made a count; the committee under my direction made a count as to the traffic or travel on that street, and from actual count we found that 95 per cent, of the travel on that street was foreign travel. I mean by this, that it neither begun nor ended in that territory. That up Milwaukee avenue went lumber wagons, brewery wagons, heavy coal wagons, heavy team- ing of all kinds. That they not alone blocked the street, but they wore out the pavement. One wagon wheel on the car track and the other out on the pave- ment, and they run a gutter and it is there to-day in their brick and asphalt and macadam pavement along Milwaukee avenue, a gutter parallel with the street railway tracks. Now, a pavement on that street practi- cally is only good for five years; that is the life of it, and the majority of people in this section that I spoke of, — there were only five horses and wagons owned by the people who owned property be- tween those two streets, and those were light business wagons, grocery wagons and butcher’s wagons. No heavy team- ing at all was done by any of the prop- erty owners there. Now, we have been, as has been said here, impoverishing our citizens here by this special assessment taxation, compell- ing them to pay enormous taxes for the repaving of those streets, and that has impoverished them. They have been fighting those taxes and they have a right to fight them. This is along the lines of economy in the end. I believe that your property will rise in value, that Chicago’s streets December 18 477 1906 will be better paved, and I believe not alone that tbe streets should be re- paved by the general fund, the greater portion should be paid out of the general fund, but I believe also the sidewalks. The sidewalks, as Mr. Smulski will tell you, have been the cause of all the dam- age suits, and the loss of $5,000,000 in damage suits by the City of Chicago was due almost exclusively to the sidewalks. It was from people going through the sidewalks, falling on the sidewalks and breaking their legs on the rotten side- walks, sidewalks that were not graded properly, sidewalks with steps up and down. I think not alone the streets, but the sidewalks should be included in this. But I believe now from our amend- ments and re-amendments we have the subject somewhat mixed. I think, Mr. Chairman, that this ought to be referred again to the committee for a re-draft according to the ideas that have been brought out here at this session of this Convention. I think that the Convention, if they will do this tonight, merely approve of this plan, give it sanction, and then let the committee put the ideas contained in the amendment offered by Mr. Smulski into form, and report it back to the Convention, having in view what the other cities in this country are doing and have done in that direction, that better results will be obtained. MR. McCORMICK: I would like to have Mr. Smulski ’s substitute read, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Smulski ’s substitute will be read. The Secretary read the substitute as it appeared in pending matter. MR, McCORMICK: Mr. Chairman, I would like Mr. Smulski to be willing to accept one suggestion, and that is, that when a street has been paved with a certain kind of pavement, then the property owners will not be asked to repave it. I make that suggestion be- cause in the case where a street is paved with cedar blocks, all cedar blocks wear out, and it would hardly be fair to ask the whole city to put down a granite block pavement. MR, SMULSKI: Mr. Chairman, in answer to Mr. McCormick I would say I doubt whether any other pavement will be laid in Chicago with cedar blocks. MR. DEVER: You cannot get cedar. MR, SMULSKI: My proposition provides that no special assessment shall be levied, but one. After we have adopted the charter we still have the right to levy one assessment in or- der to put the street in better con- dition, and from that time on no special assessment shall be levied against that same property, and now I take it that the local board of improvements, nor the City Council will ever again com- mit the crime against the City of Chi- cago of permitting any other street pavement of cedar blocks within the boundaries of our city. MR. McCORMICK: Under that un- derstanding I am in entire har- mony with Mr. Smulski ’s standpoint. MR, SMULSKI: I believe that the property owners of the city will be very glad to pay for one improvement as- sessment. They will not object to that if they know that is the last one. MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Chairman, I had in mind when I spoke of two streets in my own ward with cedar block pavement. Nothing, I consider, could be more fair than Mr. Smulski ’s substitute. When I was the representa- tive of the Twenty-first Ward in the City Council, there came up for re- paving two streets: Dearborn avenue and Rush street, from the river north to Chicago avenue. Those streets are traveled over by every wagon that crosses the river, traveled over by aM the wagons and carriages which came to my ward, which come to the Twenty- December 18 478 1906 fifth Ward and the Twenty-sixth Ward, and which go up the North Shore. No longer ago than yesterday I saw an enormous van from one of the down town retail shops which was bound north into a North Shore town, Glencoe or Winnetka. Now, the houses along Rush street and Dearborn avenue, and along a great many streets on the West Side and the South Side, which lie between the center of the city and the outside of the city, are occupied by poor people. The houses are generally boarding houses. No carriages ever drive up to one of those doors, unless it be for a funeral. The people who have automobiles run their automobiles over the street; the people who have large orders for furniture and coal and dry goods and other merchandise, will be on those streets; and those streets are mere connecting links between the users and the dealers; and it is not fair to ask the people who derive no benefit from the paving to pave it again and again. It should be paid for by the whole city. I am therefore very much in harmony with Mr. Smul- ski’s motion. MR. POST: Mr. President, I am also in harmony, once at least, with Mr. Mc- Cormick. MR. McMILLAN: Good. MR. POST: I do not think that the people who derive no benefits from those improvements should be com- pelled to pay for them. I do think that the people who derive financial benefits from those improvements should be compelled to pay for them; and I hold that that principle applies not only to the original improvement, but also to repairs. Now, I wish to offer as a substitute, I guess, to Mr. Smulski ’s substitute, Mr. President, as it is now, as it is in nay own handwriting, I will take the liberty of reading it myself to avoid embarrassment later on. (Mr. Post read the substitute as now shown in pending matter.) I understand, probably, that the first objection to be raised to that is that it is impracticable. You cannot draft any plan whereby it can be carried out. I won’t discuss that phase of the proposition at this session, because when that proposition is raised in the committee it can be demonstrated that it is entirely feasible and entirely practical, and that it has virtually been done more than once. MR. DEVER: I should like— I beg pardon. MR. POST: Do you wish to inter- rupt? I wish to say a word or two more about that. Now, Mr. Chairman, why should the contiguous property owners be charged with the expense either for original improvements or re- pairs? What is the fairness? There is no fairness about it at all, unless the improvement or the repairs, add to the value of the property that is so as- sessed; and I take it that one of the great and principal grounds that have been raised to special assessments in this city is that the assessments have not been made with reference to the financial benefit that has been con- ferred. If the special assessments are to be levied without regard to the financial benefit that is derived by the assessed property owners, then I stand as strongly against it as anyone. But, I believe it is really — at any rate I believe that it is possible to ascertain whether there is an financial benefit, and that in those cases the charge should be imposed on the owner of the property who is benefited. Now, we have heard a great deal tonight about the trucks and automo- biles and carriages, etc., wearing out the streets. I would like to get a referendum vote of the property owners of the streets through which these trucks pass, on the proposition to put December .18 479 1906 a gate at each end and intersection of those streets so that no traffic could pass through. I am inclined to think that you would find your property owners very strenuously objecting to the stoppage of traffic through those streets. In other words, traffic which wears out the streets also wears out the carriages and wagons that go through them, and that very traffic tends to add value to the contiguous property because the traffic goes through the street. Not always, of course. That is the reason I put in my motion the proposition that the added value should be taken into con- sideration. We have been told by one of the speakers today, my good friend Mr. O’Donnell, that if the city would pay for all those improvements, you would find your property rising in value. I would not find mine rising in value. Some of you gentlemen might find yours rising in value, because you are holding some of the property that a special assessment would touch, and the kind of property that generally escapes when repairs and improvements are made at the general expense. Another thing, if a stranger could have dropped into this room tonight, he would have come to the conclusion that everybody here is a property owner, and that everybody represented here is a property owner. And that property owners’ interests are the only ones to be considered. Now, if there is nobody else in this room to repre- sent the tenant class in this city, I, however inadequately, will try to re- present that tenant class. I noticq this: That there is a very large class in this city, perhaps the largest class not composed of property owners. There is a class that is not composed of the owners of the site on which this city rests, and whose property is in a dif- ferent form. I notice also that when we go to find places to live in this city, we go to the flat house, or to rent a dwelling, and we are told that the rent may be a little high: “But look at the street; see what good repair this street is in.” And we find that, other things being equal, we can get our accommodations for living purposes cheaper in the places where repairs are gone down, in a street where the street is not improved. And the point of that is, Mr. Chairman, that when- ever you make public improvements of this kind and add to the value of your property, you thereby add to the living expenses of the tenant who must occu- py your property. Now, I do not claim that this special assessment method is not the best method of reaching these values that public improvements give to the pri- vate property in the street, but I do believe that this assessment is right in principle, however crude it is in its present form, and however badly ad- ministered it is at the present time. I believe it is the duty of the Charter Convention to try to formulate a plan whereby we can impose the cost of the improvements, and the maintenance of the improvements in the streets upon the interests and the persons who derive financial benefit from those im- provements, as far as we may be able to do so. And if we adopt the sub- stitute that I propose and there is an intelligent effort made to formulate it properly for legislation we can, I be- lieve, in a degree arrive at such a con- clusion; so that when we make im- provements and when we repair the streets we can impose the cost on the people who derive financial benefit from them. Why should we adopt Mr. Smulski’s proposition to charge the property own- ers for the first improvement? It takes no account of the value, if you adopt his substitute, you are going to impose those expenses upon the property own- December 18 480 1906 ers regardless of the benefit of the im- provements; and you will take the pro- perty owners in one part of the city, just as Mr. Hoyne remarked, and you will make improvements there and do them no good financially and benefit them materially, if at all in no pecuni- ary way. You make similar improve- ments elsewhere and the contiguous owners of property are very consider- ably benefited. What fairness is there in that? We had better do away with special assessments altogether; and I would be in favor of that rather than adopt the plan which does not take into account at all the financial benefit derived by the contiguous property owners. But it is possible to take that benefit into account, and so to levy and so to distribute the expenses of making the original street improve- ments and of maintaining those im- provements, that the owners of con- tiguous property may be made to bear the expenses, and to bear it fairly, not arbitrarily, and not in a confiscatory way; but as a quid pro quo as pay- ment for something for which they are getting a fair result. That is the purpose of my proposed substitute. MR. YOPICKA: Mr. Chairman, the motion of Mr. Smulski is very good any very nice. It looks very nice in theory and it seems to me that every- body must be in favor of it. But we must take into consideration other mat- ters; we must take into consideration whether the city will be able to pay for it. Furthermore, Mr. Smulski says that the laws will come into effect after the charter is adopted. Now, here are property owners who had streets paved last year, this year or the year before. If any law is adopted which should make it taking in all these streets which are paved during this special law, so long as this assessment law is in force, about five or six years, it seems to me that we should not adopt these propositions, but we should turn them over in our minds tonight, and the resolutions offered, and leave it to the committee, and the commit- tee should report tomorrow. I make a motion, Mr. Chairman, to adjourn un- til tomorrow. MR. ROBINS: There are two or three practical considerations, Mr. Chairman, that seem to me to argue against the substitute offered by Mr. Smulski. We have just heard from the last speaker a suggestion that there is a great deal of street paving to be done for the first time. There is a great deal of street paving that has been done a number of times. There will be a clear disadvantage to the property own- ers under those circumstances under Mr. Smulski J s proposition. But there is a larger consideration, in the fact that as soon as you open street paving entirely to the action of the City Coun- cil, you would put the City Council under a system of log rolling such as the City Council has never suffered from in the past, if I am any judge of the situation. You will, at the same time, give to certain special interests an advantage, unquestionably, because they are more able to represent their case; they can afford to spend more time and more money in making out their case before the City Council. And, in my judgment, you will find the City Council paving large areas in the out- lying districts which would be simply for speculative purposes for a particu- lar lot holder or tract holder, as it might be in those areas. I do not wish to take up the time of the Convention, but there is a further consideration which I would like to submit, and that is a consideration which has not been touched upon in the discussion tonight, Mr. Chairman. I have had something to do in securing street pavements in certain parts of the city; in helping certain bodies of the people who live December 18 481 1906 in certain streets, to secure street pav- ing as against certain other people. The best guarantee that the street will be reasonably 1 put clown under specifica- tions — that those specifications will be to some degree lived up to — is the fin- nancial interest of the lot owners who live along the street. I have had oc- casion, and every alderman in this room has had occasion, and there is no person familiar with street paving in the city that has not had some occa- sion to know something about the complaint of lot owners that some part of a specification for street paving, as to the asphalt on the street, and so forth, is not being lived up to. You have the live personal interest of the lot owners along that street in the character of the improvement, to see that that improvement is put down in accordance with the law. Every one is entirely familiar with how inefficient and unsatisfactory, as a matter of fact, street paving throughout this city has been. Now, if you take away that very considerable personal interest in seeing that the improvement is made according to the specification, and that value is given to the city when the lot owner can say himself: “Oh, well, the city is putting down this street paving; let her go , 11 I believe that you will pile up a very great expense on the city, and that the condition of the street paving not only will not be bet- ter, but it will be worse than it is at the present time. MR. SUNNY: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I think that Mr. Smulski’s proposition is theoretically right, but that it is impracticable from a financial standpoint. Now, within the next five years I think this matter that we have up ought to be left entirely to the City Council. I doubt if thes substitute shall be adopted, it follows that it rests with' the City Council to determine how much above 50 per cent, the general fund shall pay. The provision is that it shall pay 50 per cent. If the City Council has available money there can be no question but that with the sentiment which exists on that the council will appropriate a larger amount than that, and might, in extreme instances, pro- vide the full costs. But if the Smulski resolution was statute law, you could not make any improvement unless the money was available for the full amount. Now, under the Merriam res- olution the city has got to stand for only 50 per cent, of it in all cases, and can stand for the full 100 per cent, if it has the funds available. It is all very well to stand here and declaim that the time is coming when Chicago is going to have money. It may be that it is. But the very earnest debate that is brought out on this question is ample evidence that the people of Chicago at all times will hold the purse string just as tight as they possibly can. And the requirements of the ordinary functions of the government are increasing year by year with greater rapidity than is increasing the tax fund out of which those requirements are met. MR. ROBINS: Mr. Chai rman, I rise to move the unanimous consent of the Convention that Alderman Snow be al- lowed to continue his remarks. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no ob- jection Alderman Snow has that unani- mous consent. ( Cries of 11 Agreed. ’ ’ ) MR. SNOW : Mr. Chairman, I had intended to close at that point. I do not believe that there is anything further that I care to bring out. I think every other point has been covered, and pos- sibly some that I have attempted to cover. But it certainly seems to me that it would be the height of folly for the Convention at this time, to adopt the Smulski resolution. MR. YOPICKA: Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with the arguments just made by Mr. Snow. I would like to vote for the resolution of Mr. Smulski if it would contain two provisions, one is that the amendment should differentiate from the time the special assessment law went into effect. In other words, that those people who paid for paving in the last five years should have the benefit of that law. That is one. The second one is that the city must first provide funds out of which the pav- ing appropriations could be met. For those reasons I vote for the amendment of Mr. Smulski, if those two provisions are put in. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question on Mr. Smulski ’s sub- stitute? As many as favor it say aye; opposed no. It is lost. The next question is upon Prof. Mer- December 19 512 1906 riam’s substitute for No. 1. All who favor — MR. G. W. DIXON : Will you please have that read? THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary read Mr. Merriam ’s substitute to No. 1. Mr. Merriam ’s substitute was read. MR. POST: Mr. President, the rules are somewhat liberal, but I want to ask a question. I would like to know if a motion to lay the resolution on the table is in order? THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly, sir. MR. POST: Then I move to lay on the table all that part of this resolution that follows the word ‘ ‘ otherwise. ’ ’ THE CHAIRMAN: You move to strike out? MR. POST : Or lay on the table. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary read that portion which Mr. Post moves to strike out. The Secretary read the resolution after the word 1 1 otherwise. ’ ’ THE CHAIRMAN : Are you ready upon the question off Mr. Post ’s motion to strike out? MR. MERRIAM: You have that in alternative 5, that mentions the amounts. That is alternative to 5 itself. I ask ion a point of order whether it is in order. THE CHAIRMAN: It is alternative 5 with the word “fifty” in. MR. MERRIAM: He moves to strike out all that part to make it identical with 5. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor of Mr. Post’s motion say aye; opposed no. It is lost. MR. SUNNY: I would like to offer an amendment to alternative 5. I think the original measure is open to conjecture as to whether the City Council has the right to vary the percentage with refer- ence to one part of the city compared with another, or, in one case or another. I do not think it is the intention of the alternative to 5, and I think that the City Council would be embarrassed by hav- ing any authority either real or imagin- ary to make percentage different in one part of the city as compared with another. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the amendment. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Sunny: Provided that the percentage of the cost of repaving to be imposed upon the contiguous property shall be uniform throughout the city. THE CHAIRMAN : Are there any ob- jections to this amendment? If not, all those in favor — MR. LINE-HAN: I object. MR. SNOW: If there is objection, if Mr. Linehan is going to object, I wish to object. I do not want to take up the time of the Convention all the time. THE CHAIRMAN : The matter is be- fore the house for discussion. MR. SNOW : It seems to me that it is based upon an entirely erroneous theory. There may be, and is a differ- ence between the interest which a prop- erty owner upon one street may have in an improvement as compared with a prop- erty owner upon another. To illustrate broadly, you take a quiet residence street in which the only traffic is the milk man, the baker and the grocery wagon de- livering to the people living on that street, and the interest of the property owner on that street is larger in that prop- erty than would be the interest of the property owner on a street perhaps sim- ilar in character so far as residence prop- erty or buildings is concerned, but which is a through artery of travel, and which is used for the benefit of all the City of Chicago for transacting its commerce. For that reason there might very easily be a difference in the value to the prop- erty owner for that pavement. MR. RAYMER: Mr. Chairman, just one thought occurs to me in connection with that proposition; I do not know that I entirely agree with Mr. Snow. I know that in some residence neighborhoods you December 19 513 1906 find one street nicely paved and you find all of the rest of the streets in the im- mediate neighborhood in a very bad con- dition. The consequence is that every coal wagon and every vehicle of every kind and description that has to do busi- ness in that neighborhood uses the one well paved street to get through. Now, under Mr. Snow’s proposition, everybody would get an equal benefit out of this public benefit fund. If you had a well paved city in its entirety ob- jection to the resolution would be all right, but until you have a well paved city I do not believe that you should discriminate. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon Mr. Snow’s amendment. MR. LINEHAN: Mr. Chairman, I think that that matter ought to be left in the original form before it was amend- ed. It is a well known fact that the necessity of paving streets like Milwau- kee avenue and Blue Island avenue is greater than what it is in the case of the streets in a residence portion. For that reason f do not see why the council should not be in a position to grant those privileges to streets like Milwaukee ave- nue, Halsted street and Blue Island ave- nue and give a greater percentage of the city ’s money towards their repair than what they give to the residence dis- tricts where the streets are scarcely used at all by the wagons of the City of Chi- cago. MR. SHEDD: Mr. Chairman, it seems to mo there is one point which has not been brought out in the discussion, and that is the revenue to be derived from I the street which is used. It seems to me that , the rentals accruing from a street which is used as a great through street like Milwaukee avenue and our other main ; thoroughfares make the property much more valuable ami much more able to pay i the tax than is the case with residence property. 1 ain, therefore, very much in favor of the resolution. It is true that in all large thoroughfares throughout the city, as I believe, the rental is far and away enough more to pay the added cost of the improvements necessary to keep those streets in repair, and I think there is hardly any one in this room who is not willing to exchange their property on residence streets for property on a through thoroughfare with the added rental. For that reason I am very much in favor of the amendment offered . by Mr. Snow. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question — MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question of Mr. Merriam or Mr. Snow: Does this include or will it include the present boulevard system of the City of Chicago? THE CHAIRMAN: I do not get the question. MR. WHITE: As I understand it, they are now maintained out of the gen- eral park taxation. Will they remain as they are, or will this include the boulevard systems? THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, no, this is simply affecting the present special as- sessment law'. It has nothing to do with that. All those in favor of Mr. Snow’s amendment will signify by saying aye; opposed no. (The viva voce vote left the Chairman in doubt.) THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Burke, Church, Dixon, G. W. ; Eekhart, J. W. ; Gansbergen, Lathrop, McGoorty, O’Donnell, Oehne, ‘ Pow r ers, Raymer, Revell, Sethness, Shedd, Sunny, Swift, Vopicka, White, Zimmer — 19. Nays — Beebe, Bennett, Brosseau, Brown, Carey, Cole, Erickson, Guerin, Hunter, .Tones, Kittleman, Linelnin, Mc- Kinley, Merriam, Owens, Pendarvis, Rob- ins, Shanahan, Shepard, Snow — 20. (During roll call.) December 19 514 1906 MR. POST: I desire to pass my vote on that question, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the motion to adopt Mr. Snow ’s amendment, the yeas are 19 and the nays are 20, and the motion is lost. MR. BURKE: Mr. Chairman, I desire to offer an amendment and desire just a moment to explain it. The amendment, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the Convention, which I have just offered — THE CHAIRMAN: Let the amend- ment be read first, please. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Burke: Amend the pending proposition by in- serting the word ‘ 1 sidewalk ’ ’ after the word ‘ ‘ street ’ ’ wherever the same ap- pears. MR. BURKE: Mr. Chairman, in the resolution which was offered by Prof. Merriam the word ‘ ‘ sidewalk ’ ’ is left out. I do not know whether it was done intentionally or not, but we have heard a great deal concerning the expense of damage suite and the cost to the City of Chicago with reference to accidents upon sidewalks, and I therefore offer the amendment just read for the purpose of curing what may possibly be an over- sight. I move its adoption. THE CHAIRMAN : The question is upon the adoption of Mr. Burke ’s amend- ment. MR. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, will you please have that read? The Secretary re-read Mr. Burke ’s amendment. MR. SNOW : Mr. Chairman, that is open to the objection that it is too broad altogether. We have sidewalks in Chi- cago built of lumber, wooden sidewalks, and the council is taking them out. Cer- tain^ the property owner should not put in a wooden sidewalk and expect the city to come along and give him a cement sidewalk immediately. MR. BURKE: Mr. Chairman, in answer to Alderman Snow, I desire to say that I take it that the City of Chi- cago, unless the ordinance is violated, provides for cement sidewalks. MR. SNOW: We have cinder walks, have w T e not? MR. MERRIAM: Sidewalks was not left out unintentionally, but purposely left out. Sidewalks involves quite a dif- ferent condition and an outlay almost as much as under the fifty per cent, di- vision. The outlay on sidewalks figured by the city under the special assessment involves a million and a half, and under the fifty per cent, division that would add $750,000 to the burden which was in- volved in the original resolution. You have to start somewhere, you have to make a start, and that is all .very well after the city gets enough money on hand, if such a thing is possible, or conceivable; then they can start out and pay fifty per cent, of the cost of sidewalks. It does not seem to me under the present financial condition of the City of Chi- cago that it could expend any more than the fifty per cent, that is contemplated in the original resolution; there is an absolute financial limit to it. MR. LATHROP : Mr. Chairman, I am very much opposed to the inclusion of sidewalks in this proposition. We all know that if you take a piece of land in the outlying districts it is subdivided and put into lots for sale, and the first thing done is to put in a sidewalk. It is not necessary in many instances to get a street in there, but a sidewalk is ab- solutely essential to the sale of the land and lots, and I think we are opening up a vista of expenditure which is be- yond our present realization. I therefore hope that this resolution will not pre- vail. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, upon Mr. Burke’s amendment, do you desire a roll call? (A roll call was demanded.) THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre - tary call the roll. December 19 515 1906 ME. KOBINS: What is the question, on Mr. Burke’s resolution? THE CHAIRMAN: Upon Mr. Burke’s amendment. MR. ROBINS : No. Yeas — Burke, O’Donnell, Oehne, Pen- darvis, Powers, — 5. Nays — Beebe, Brosseau, Brown, Carey, Church, Cole, Dixon, G. W. ; Eckhart, B. A. ; Eckhart, J. W. ; Erickson, Gans- bergen, Guerin, Hunter, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, McGoorty, Merriam, Owens, Post, Raymer, Revell, Robins, Sethness, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Snow, Sunny, Swift, Yopicka, White, Zimmer — 34. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the mo- tion to adopt Mr. Burke ’s amendment, the yeas are 5 and the nays are 34 and the motion is lost. The Secretary will read No. 6. MR. MERRIAM: Mr. Chairman, has alternative to 5 been adopted? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. (Cries of “no. ”) MR. G. W. DIXON: We have had no vote yet. THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, I beg pardon. The question now recurs upon the adoption of alternative to No. 5 as amended by Mr. Merriam. As many as favor it sig- nify by saying aye — MR. RAYMER: Mr. Chairman, I desire to be recorded no. MR. POST: I desire to be recorded no. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary call the roll. Yeas — Beebe, Brosseau, Brown, Burke, Carey, Church, Cole, Dixon, G. W. ; Eck- hart, B. A.; Eckhart, J. W. ; Erickson, Gansbergen, Guerin, Hunter, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, McGoorty, McKinley, Merriam, O’Donnell, Oehne, Owens, Pendarvis, Powers, Revell, Rob- ins, Sethness, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Snow, Swift, Vopicka, White, Zimmer —37. Nays — Beilfuss, Post, Raymer, Sunny — 4. THE CHAIRMAN : Upon the motion to adopt alternative to No. 5 in place of 5, yeas 37 ; nays 4 ; the motion is carried. MR. MERRIAM: I would like to call up Chapter 15, which was deferred until Revenue, and which now should properly be considered, Chapter 15 on streets and public places, it involves the matter of compensation for space below sidewalks. THE CHAIRMAN : You desire to take that up before finishing the rest of this section? MR MERRIAM: Yes; Section 16 is a sort of a residuary clause. We should take up the specific point first. I move the adoption of No. 1 under 15. MR. YOPICKA: I offered some reso- lutions last night that I think should be taken up now in preference to the special assessment laws. I think they should be taken up now, motions presented last night by me; they are on page 495. THE CHAIRMAN: Do I understand you, you want to take that up now? I understood you were to take that up later, that it was to be deferred until the Revenue Committee reported. MR. YOPICKA: I think it ought to be taken up now. THE CHAIRMAN: Let Mr. Yo- picka ’s resolution be read. The Vopicka resolutions, page 495, left hand column, were read. MR. VOPICKA: Mr. Chairman, I desire the adoption of the first resolution, which extends the entire time of the bonds which the city has the right to issue, according to the present law, from 10 to 20 years. My resolution offered was for this purpose : In case of a large assessment for widening or for opening a street, when the assessment may amount to from five to fif- teen million dollars, that that amount should be assessed over a period of five years. It would be i December 19 516 1906 less hard upon the people in general. For that reason I offer the resolution that the City of Chicago shall have the right to issue bonds for twenty years, and then the property owners would pay for the assessment without noticing it in the taxes. I know that if you adopt this resolution it will be something popular, and it certainly will be very well accepted by the people generally, and will get more friends for the adop- tion of the charter by adopting this resolution than anything else. I further move the adoption of reso- lution No. 2. We have already talked about this matter and of course THE CHAIRMAN: The Chairman would suggest that the motions be put one at a time. MR. VOPICKA: All right. THE CHAIRMAN: I understood you to move the adoption of the first suggestion. MR. VOPICKA: Yes, that the bonds be THE CHAIRMAN: It reads as fol- lows : (The Chairman hereupon read the first paragraph of Mr. Vopicka ’s resolu- tions. ) MR. VOPICKA: I wish to state further, Mr. Chairman, that the bonds for opening and widening the streets are to be made out and sold before the opening is accomplished, because when a contract is given out, the contractors are expecting their money, and unless you have money in the treasury for the widening or the opening of such streets it cannot be paid out. For that reason a fund is to be created and out of that fund the money is to be paid. MR. REVELL: Mr. Chairman, I think there is a good deal in what Mr. Vopicka says. I do not feel qualified to vote on this matter today, however. And as the committees have been dis- pensed with it seems to me that all four of these amendments should be referred to the Committee on Plan and Procedure, and they should come back here with a recommendation from that committee. As it is now, if this matter comes to a vote I should refuse to vote upon it because I do not know what the situation is in that connection. I suggest that Mr. Vopicka make such a motion. MR. VOPICKA: I made a motion last night, and the Chairman promised something should be done, but nothing was done. For that reason I call it up now. I move that the matter be deferred until the report of the Revenue Committee, for consideration. THE CHAIRMAN: Deferred until the report of the Revenue Committee? MR. VOPICKA: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Merriam calls up Section 15, streets and public places. MR. MERRIAM: I move the adop- tion of Section 1. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Merriam moves the adoption of Section 1. The Secretary will read section. (Section 1 was read.) THE CHAIRMAN: Do you desire to have the alternatives read before this is voted upon? MR. ROBINS: Yes, we would like to have them all read. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read all of the alternatives. (The Secretary then read the alterna- tives contained in pages 54 and 55.) THE CHAIRMAN: The question be- fore the house is upon Mr. Merriam ’s motion to adopt No. 1. Are you ready for the question? THE CHAIRMAN: As many as fa- vor the motion will signify by saying aye. MR. O’DONNELL: I would like to have something to say upon this sub- ject. THE CHAIRMAN: Sir? MR. O’DONNELL: I would like to December 19 517 1906 have something to say. I would like to say a few words upon this proposi- tion. Is it intended by this section to give, for instance, along the right of way of the elevated railroad, permission to have private entrances to stores and places of business along the elevated structure, to the detriment of other like places of business in the City of Chi- cago? Every business place in the city is not so fortunate as to be on the loop, and I am opposed to having public util- ity corporations given the power of the privilege of allowing the use of their platforms to act as feeders of the stores alone the line of the elevated railroad. I am opposed to the power of the city to grant such special privileges. Now, if this section means that, that the City Council shall have that power, it is a very vicious section. We do not want to have the charter of the City of Chicago discriminating in favor of some businesses or some people in business as against the others. I want to read it : ‘ ‘ Provision shall be made for enabling the city to exact compensation, at a rate to be fixed by general ordinance, for licensing the temporary use by private parties of space below as well as above the level of the surface of streets, alleys and other public places. ’ ’ * 1 The temporary use, ’ ’ what could be the purpose of a temporary use, I can- not imagine. I do not know how to describe it; to put a fruit stand on a street, would that be a temporary pse? To put in these runways into these de- partment stores, would those be tempor- ary uses? The little business man in the City of Chicago has a hard time to exist. The little business men are benefactors of the people of the city, in the little communities around these small places of business; they have sup- ported the community; they have trust- ed the laboring man, the poor man ; they have given him an account for groceries and for goods in the butcher shop; they are doing a great work in this com- munity; and now let us not discriminate against him in favor of the department store fellow, and give the department store fellow a chance to have a runway into his store from one of these struc- tures — call it for temporary purposes, or otherwise. I feel, and I fear, that this section as it is written will just give that power. It may be said in favor of it that there are many uses to which the streets, the stub ends of the streets and so forth, might be put, that they could be utilized by the city to build up the revenue of the city. All right. But let it not dis- criminate in favor of some giant busi- ness here as against the small business man. Probably those who understand this section, probably Prof. Merriam can explain it in such a way that it may seem to be proper. But I am afraid of it; I am afraid to give that power to the City Council in this charter. MR. HUNTER: May I ask you a question, Mr. O’Donnell? MR. O’DONNELL: With pleasure. MR. HUNTER: Would you have the same idea of a bridge going into a passenger depot — for, instance, into the Rock Island and Lake Shore depot? MR. O’DONNELL: Yes, sir, I would have. MR. HUNTER: It is a great con- venience to the traveling public. MR. O’DONNELL: I know, but I would not discriminate in favor of any of those people; these may benefit the traveling public, but it would establish a precedent that is wrong. The prece- dent is wrong. I would not want to make fish of one and fowl of the other. MR. SHEPARD: May I suggest, Mr. O’Donnell, if the precedent is wrong, why not classify it? If the depot is right it should not be set out, excluded, if it is right. MR. O’DONNELL: There are some things that might be said in favor of December 19 518 1906 the railroad depot; but all railroad de- pots are not ■ on the loop, and the line of distinction is probably pretty finely drawn in that case. But the same prin- ciple runs through the entire matter. Now, a few days ago the Supreme Court, I am glad to say, condemned this business of a venal City Council get- ting through their order here giving the department store the privilege, that they knocked out, one of their entrances; but it took the Supreme Court to do it. One of the weak points of this council has been that it has always discriminated in favor of some rich, powerful fellow that does not pay his taxes in this commun- ity. Now, let not this Charter Convention make this mistake of giving special privi- leges to any man. Let every business be entered into from the street; let all businesses have a chance here, so that we will not impoverish one portion of the city and make the other portion all mil- lionaires, so that they are masters here. These men have always — I want to see some of those great enterprises do some- thing for the people, the plain people of the City of Chicago, that have made them rich. They have stopped their street cars in front of their very stores; they could not go any further; they had to stop there. I think this is a very vicious section, and I sincerely trust it w r ill get a good airing in this Convention, and that this Convention may be right. I certainly am opposed to that, Mr. Chairman. MR. POST : May I ask w r hether Mr. O ’Donnell is opposed to the principle of the thing, or whether he is opposed to the language, that it is so broad, or that the principle should be refused? Because if it is in the language we can well regulate that at some future ses- sion, when the form comes in. I did not infer from what he said — I do not understand from what he has stated whether it is the principle or the broad language that he objects to. MR. MERRIAM: Mr. Chairman, I might explain very briefly the purpose of this section here; I thought every- body here was conversant with it al- ready. This resolution is not to be con- ceived — it goes without saying — in a spirit of hostility to a rich man or to a poor man, or the large storekeeper or the small storekeeper. It is offered pri- marily in the interests of the public. There is a large space along the sur- face of the streets occupied by private users. Also a space above the street level. By the act of 1905 the legisla- ture authorized the City of Chicago to exact compensation for space above the level of the streets, for at least twelve feet above. What we are asking for now is authority to exact compensa- tion for the use of space by private owners below the streets. That is an evident proposition, that the streets are public property, covering not only the surface of the streets, reaching as far as up to the heavens, but as far down also, as far as the equator, as far dowm as you can go. So that the streets cover not only the surface, but the spaces above and below. The space below and above is public property. That has never been disputed by any one, as far as I know. The only diffi- culty that has arisen, as far as I know, is that the courts declare this space below the level of the streets and above is held by the City of Chicago in trust for the State of Illinois. Therefore, without the special grant of power from the legislature, it will not be possible for us to exact compensation for the use of them. Neither is it possible, as I understand, under the existing law, for anybody to use any such space, or for the city to grant a license to do so temporarily or otherwise. The word ‘ 1 temporary ’ ’ has no particular sig- nificance here, because it will be im- possible for the city to grant a per- December 19 519 1906 manent right to obstruct a street, either above or below. It cannot permit such a license permanently — that is, other- wise than temporary. I think if you strike out the word * ‘ temporary ’ ’ the legal effect of the clause would be pre- cisely the same as it is now. The broad, general principle upon which MR. LATHROP: I want to ask just one question: Is it the intention that the provision means that the license should be granted to the abutting property owners when it says 11 private person ?” Will there be any objection to making that clear, if that is the intention? MR. MERRIAM: I should say the permit would be granted to the abut- ting property owners. I suppose that is the intention. That is the desire, to grant power to the city to exact compensation for the use of the streets by private own- ers below the surface of the street. That is public property, and the public property cannot be used for private purposes without paying compensation to the city. The people of the State of Illinois cannot very well exact com- pensation, therefore if compensation is going to be exacted it must be exacted in the City of Chicago. If the people of Illinois have this property held in trust for them, the city will authorize it and we shall have the power to ex- act compensation to a measure that we think is sufficient, and that will be provided by a general ordinance uni- form in its character. MR. HOYNE: I would like to ask a further question. Does this provision carry the right of the city to impose licenses for space above the sidewalks? MR. CHAIRMAN: Will Mr. Hoyne speak up? MR. MERRTAM: Public streets, al- leys and public places. MR. HOYNE: Will that cover side- walks? MR. MERRIAM: Yes. MR. HOYNE: Then, if that is the case I am in favor of Mr. O ’Donnell's motion. ' THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair was not aware that Mr. O’Donnell had made a motion. MR. HOYNE: I thought he made a motion to lay this upon the table. MR. O’DONNELL: I did not make a motion, Mr. Chairman. I thought I would allow it to be discussed, as I \yanted to raise a few objections to it. MR. SIIEDD: I think, Mr. Chair- man, there are a good many objections to this resolution as offered, and per- sonally I am very much in favor of al- ternatives— the second alternative to No. 1. I think that if this space is allowed to be used by any owner, large or small, that compensation should be exacted for it. "E do not believe there is any user of sidewalk space either above or below the street level — that he should have the privilege of using that space without paying compensa- tion for it. The resolution as it ap- pears to me — and I think the question has been raised by Mr. Hoyne — would indicate that the City Council would have the right to rent any sidewalk space. That, I think, would be very objectionable in the clause. I do not believe there is any one in this Con- vention who would desire the City Council to have the privilege of rent- ing sidewalk space, or any portion of the street. Personally I am very much afraid that it might be construed that the City Council should allow any one to encroach on the sidewalk space, and that would be a very objectionable feature. I don’t think that the of course, persons erecting buildings should not be compelled to place their cornice line back to the street level. That would be a hardship upon the property owner and would lessen the enterprise of architects in erecting buildings. I do believe that no other erection except such as might be ap- December 19 520 1906 proved by a proper ordinance should be allowed over the sidewalk space. The streets are at present disfigured now with all kinds of signs and disfig- urements. I object to it very much, that the City Council should have the right to rent space on the streets, either above or below the sidewalk. MR. MERRIAM: Mr. Chairman, will you permit a question? THE CHAIRMAN: Will you permit a question? MR. SHEDD: Yes. MR. MERRIAM: You understand that this act will permit the city to exact compensation for the surface of the sidewalk — for space. MR. SHEDD: I so read it. MR. MERRIAM: The present law gives us the power to exact compensa- tion for a space of twelve feet above, and this adds to that the power to exact compensation for the space below the surface of the street. THE CHAIRMAN: That is all the difference. MR. SNOW: I do not think is Mr. Shedd through? THE CHAIRMAN: Are you through, Mr. Shedd? MR. SHEDD: I should have some hesitation, Mr. Chairman, in voting up- on this question, because, as is well known in this Convention, I have, you might say, a direct financial interest. I would be voting in one sense against myself by voting for compensation, al- though I believe in it. I believe com- pensation should be exacted; and I also believe in the right, if it should be dele- gated to the City Council, to remedy the evils of old subdivisions in this city. This city was subdivided by real estate agents years ago who had little idea of the future growth and needs and interests of the users of space. If the City Council did not have the right to grant the powers as indicated es- specially by the second alternative to No. 1, it would really limit the progress I of business in this city to a very serious extent, and in a way which I do not be- lieve this Convention is ready to do. It is a fact, and I believe that every man in this Convention is anxious to see every business in this city, whether large or small, expand. I do not be- lieve that this Convention would want to put its stamp of approval upon any suggestion from any member of this Convention that there was any busi- ness, be it large or small, which should not expand, and expand naturally. I believe that if there is no constitution- al objection, you understand there will be some difficulty to getting even the city the right to rent space, but it has been done. I hope and believe it is for the best interests of the city to continue to do it, and I believe that every user of such space should be compelled — not that the council may have the privilege — but they should be compelled to exact compensation for every such space. I therefore move, Mr. Chairman, as a substitute for Mr. Merriam ’s motion that the second al- ternative to No. 1 be adopted. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shedd moves as a substitute the adoption of second alternative to No. 1, and the Secretary will read it. The Secretary read second alterna- tive to No. 1, as it appears on page 55 of the printed proceedings. MR. COLE: Mr. Chairman, I was not here last evening and I only read hastily in the papers what was said here, but in view of the fact that my friend, Mr. Shedd, and my friend, Mr. O ’Donnell, joined together and knocked out something that was intro- duced by my friend, Mr. Merriam, I would like to inquire what has become of the minority and majority of this Convention. I don ’t see just exactly where it comes in. It seems to me we are all getting together, and I hope before we have finished that Mr. Shan- December 19 521 1906 ahan, my friend, and myself will agree on municipal ownership. ME. SNOW: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Snow. ME. MEERIAM: Mr. Chairman, will you permit me to ask a question. Will you yield the floor (addressing Mr. Snow.) MR. SNOW: Yes. MR. MERRIAM: I will say, Mr. Chairman, that I am willing to accept Mr. Shedd ’s suggestion of the adoption of second alternative to No. 1. It is substantially the same as I moved and I am willing to accept it. MR. SNOW : Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Merriam accepts that alternative I would like to suggest that the first proposition definitely limits that use to a temporary use in order that the city may take that use away at any time it interferes with public interest. The alternative simply provides for the space, and there is no provision there whether that may be made permanent or otherwise. But I am inclined to think that Mr. Shedd would be satis- fied with the first proposition if he was entirely clear that it did not include the right to rent the surface of the street or sidewalk. MR. KITTLEMAN: Mr. Chairman THE CHAIRMAN : For what pur- pose do you rise? MR. KITTLEMAN: I want to ask the gentleman a question. THE CHAIRMAN: Will Alderman Snow yield to a question? MR. SNOW : Certainly. MR. KITTLEMAN: Isn’t that fixed in the ordinances, the details as to how long you are to rent it? MR. SNOW : It can be fixed, it is fixed now in the contracts we have made, but it seems to me it would be desirable to incorporate in the organic law the principle that that use is not to be made permanent. MR. SHEPARD: May I ask Mr. Snow a question? The drafter, as I understand, of all these resolutions con- templated that private use shall give way to public necessity or public de- mand of any kind. Now, with that un- derstanding of the drafters, I would suggest that the law itself prescribed and reserved that right in the city. I understand Mr. Shedd contemplates that reservation of authority to the city. MR. SNOW : I think it meets the approval of all who favor that proposi- tion. MR. HUNTER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Alderman Snow a question. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you yield to a question, Alderman Snow? MR. SNOW: Yes. MR. HUNTER: Isn’t it a fact that all of these ordinances contain a pro- vision that they can be revoked by the will of the mayor, every one of them? MR. SNOW: The ordinance is made so at the present time — yes. I do not consider that is a very important mat- ter one way or the other, but, Mr. Chairman, there is just one thing I want to say: This body is a deliberative body, se- lected, presumably, because of charac- ter and capacity, and because of their interest and ability to meet and grap- ple with the questions which are of importance in framing a new charter for Chicago. It is a body which will accomplish better results by fairness, decency of statement and fair treat- ment to each other. Members of this body come from various public bodies selected by those bodies because of their capacity, and it comes with ex- ceeding poor grace for any member of this Convention to use intemperate and abusive language in speaking of a body which is represented in this body. It strikes me that an attempt on the part of one member to covertly criticise members of another body ought to re- December 19 522 1906 'fleet rather upon the intelligence and fair play of the man making the at- tempt than to the discredit of the body criticised. MR. REVELL: Mr. Chairman, we have been very generous in permitting discussion on this matter MR. WHITE: Louder, please. MR. REYELL: The Chairman has been very generous in permitting dis- cussion of this matter without a direct motion. I see none of these alterna- tives that exactly fit my view of this matter. I would like to say that I rather in- cline toward Mr. O’Donnell’s view re- garding special privileges. It seems to me that if we are all kept within the line of the street which belongs to the property owner and belongs to the City of Chicago we would all be better off. We all want special privileges when we can get them. And so far as the space below the sidewalk is concerned it seems to me it would be a mistake to permit any more than a small charge for that space until such time as the public would want it for the general uses of the public. If you do, you will meet with this objection: There are large portions of the city, mainly your through streets, such as Halsted, Milwaukee avenue and Archer avenue and South State street, where the space below the sidewalk is not worthy of the taking out the soil which is there and the soil will be left there and whenever the city shall come to the time that it will want to use this space they will find that they can use one block and for three blocks they will not be able to use it unless the city takes the soil out itself. Now, why would it not be better for the city to make a nominal charge for the space beneath the sidewalk, en- courage the property owners when they are building all over the city to take the dirt out from beneath that side- walk and put it in such shape that it can be used by the city, but reserve to the city the right to come in and use that space, as it should have that right at all times? I think it a very serious mistake, because if you will go back to the records you will find that the amount received by the City of Chi- cago today as compensation for such use is practically infinitessimal; and I know of one very large concern in the downtown district where they have taken out a portion of the space under the sidewalk and left another large por- tion of the space under the sidewalk, because in that special section of their establishment under the sidewalk they did not want the use uf that space and did not care to pay for the demands of the City of Chicago. Now, I think you have a chance here to make a serious mistake by action upon this matter today. I thoroughly sympathize with Mr. O’Donnell in the position he takes regarding special privileges, regarding bridges extending from elevated platforms into the stores of any one in the City of Chicago. Not only because we grant to that store a special opportunity to get at the pub- lic, but because it litters the streets of the City of Chicago, streets that we ought to hold as cleanly and as bright as we can possibly can hold them. I know that it will not always be possi- ble for us to have our streets as clear and clean as State street, but it is possible for us to draw the line some- where. And even so far, gentlemen, as the depots are concerned, I see no great harm to the people landing upon an elevated platform and going down the stairs under a covered canopy with- in what could be eight feet from the foot of the stairs and that canopy, eight feet of space between the foot of that stairs and the entrance to the depot. That would be all that the pub- lic would have to put up with in the way of running against the weather conditions. I am against special privi- December 19 523 1906 leges, and I am in favor of a nominal charge for space under the sidewalks because I believe you are going to do a very great harm to the future needs of the city if you permit the matter to go as I have suggested and I know it is going that way in the City of Chicago today. MR. SHEDD: Mr. Chairman, speak- ing to my motion, my reason for desir- ing the adoption of alternative to No. 1 is that I do not suppose that this Convention knows how limited the num- ber of spaces are that are paid for under the sidewalks of the City of Chicago. I am not positive in this statement, but I believe that no compensation is exacted for the use of sidewalk space in the City of Chicago except in such cases where new improvements have been inaugurated by the owners of the real estate and the necessity of making these excavations has given the opportunity to exact il- legal compensation. Now, I believe it is very unwise for the city to be obliged to remain in that position. They are in the position that they are exacting illegal compensation. Now. as I said, I am not in favol* of illegal compensation, and while I am in favor of compensation, I want some definite plan. I do not want any man to pay compensation that is not exacted of another under like circumstances all through. Now, I say, let us be very careful about this matter. Let us de- mand that compensation shall be ex- acted not for any particular space used, but for all or any space used under t he sidewalks of the City of Chicago. I think if you examine into the matter, gentlemen, you will find that there' are about four instances where the City of Chicago is exacting nominal compensa- tion, and they are not to blame for it; the <’ity of Chicago is not to blame for it, but it is due to the conditions exist- ing at the present time, and it will con- tinue as long as this sidewalk space is used as it has been for the last forty years. The first house that I occupied in the City of Chicago had a coal space from the sidewalk to the house line, and 1 used it for the storing of my coal. That was thirty-five years ago, perhaps, and I say to you now that I believe in compensation, but I believe in exact- ing it on some well defined lines so that the City Council will not have to blow hot in one place and cold in another; and that they shall exact that compen- sation, and I think it would be very unwise for this Convention to pass any resolution authorizing this Convention to go to Springfield with any other plan, and I hope that my substitute will pass. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, the question is upon Mr. Shedd’s motion that the second alternative to No. 1 be sub- stituted for the motion of Prof. Mer- riam. Are you ready for the question? MR. O’DONNELL: I have not spoken on this question. Now, some- thing has been said that points directly to myself. It may be that in the heat of debate or the feeling that I have, that I have said something that the gentleman who represents the City Coun- cil here has not taken in the spirit I intended. But I feel strongly for the City of Chicago. My son ’s grandfather came herein 1836, and he voted for the first mayor of the City of Chicago. I love Chicago. I came here when a small child myself, and I worked here as a boy and as a man, and I am grateful to Chicago for what it did for me; I am grateful to the citizens of the City of Chicago. It may be that my regard for it lias resulted in my speaking a little freely; it may be that it has loosened my tongue a little, in trying to guard its welfare, the welfare of its citizens today, and the welfare of those that arc' to come. The City Council is here, and it is here, I suppose, to stay. 1 have only that criticism to make of it, that [ December 19 524 1906 feel I should make of it, not bitterly, but in such a way that we may not for- get. The gentleman is probably super- sensitive; it may be that he is the re- presentative of some particular inter- est in the City Council that is looking after the welfare of the citizens of the City of Chicago, and I am sure that any investigations that may be pending, when it has the truth, will not affect the gentleman, but will show he is just as sincere as I am and just as capable of looking after the affairs of the City of Chicago as I am. But I want to say this, Mr. Chair- man, that I will still hold the right, .according to my judgment and dictates of my conscience, to say on this floor of the Convention, in plain and unvar- nished language, what I think the City of Chicago deserves and merits at the hands of not the rulers or the governors of its people, but at the hands of its ser- vants, as the City Council should be. Their object should be not for anything except to serve the city faithfully and well, so that when the people of the next generation or two take up the record and read it, they can say of them, “Well done, good and faithful ser- vants. ’ ’ MR. ROBINS: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to inquire, before the roll call was had, whether it was understood that the first alternative, which I wish to favor, with this understanding, provides only for temporary rights to be granted 1 ? The reason I am concerned about that is that I understand that the plan pro- vides for the construction and use of subways, and that should not be barred in any way. I should have said the second alternative, instead of the first. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shedd’s mo- tion is to substitute the second alterna- tive to No. 1 all that definitely excludes grants of public utilities. Your proposi- tion is that the word 1 1 temporary ’ ’ should be in there? MR. ROBINS : Yes, that is the sense in which we take it, so that the drafter will draw it in that form. MR. SHEDD: I think that is under- stood; I think the city has been pro- perly safeguarded in all contracts that they have made, so far as I know; the city has the right to take it over at any time. MR. PENDARVIS : Mr. Chairman, before a vote is taken upon this prop- osition there is something in my mind that I would like to call to the atten- tion of the Convention. This same pro- position has been presented to the gen- eral assembly at Springfield on one or two different occasions, and I have al- ways had a hesitancy in supporting the proposition for the reason that it ap- pears to me that it is opposed to the theory upon which the city holds title to the streets and public ways in the city. The proposition is submitted because a condition exists here, whether it be legal or not, and that because it exists some revenue should be obtained from it. Now, it occurs to me that it is questionable whether we qught to recog- nize that fact by a charter provision, and w T hether or not the revenue to be obtained from these concessions, or li- censes, should be sufficient to justify or warrant us in departing from the legal principle or theory upon which the city holds title to the streets and alleys. In other words, are we going to re- cognize the fact that this condition is always to continue and be made a source of revenue without any limitation what- ever upon the power of the council as to the extent to which it can exercise the power conferred? In other words, the city holds title to the streets or alleys not for the pur- pose of obtaining revenue therefrom, but for the public at large and for such uses as may be considered public in their character. Now, it seems to me we December 19 525 1906 ought to hesitate before we depart en- tirely from that theory of the law, with- out imposing any limitations whatever upon the power of the council. It may be that it will never be exercised in a way that is prejudicial to the public at large, or to the correct theory of the use of the streets and alleys; but it is equally true that it could be; and there is no limitation whatever in the proposi- tion as it is stated upon that power. Now, I have heretofore in my attitude upon questions and propositions coming before the Convention attempted to take what I believe to be a conservative posi- tion. I believe we want nothing in this charter that is not conservative and that will not appeal to the people as being for the best interests of the people; and the question that makes me doubtful now as to this proposition is whether or not the revenue to be obtained from this source is sufficient to justify us in tak- ing the position that we should confer upon the city the power to license and use the streets and alleys upon and be- low the surface, without compensation. I submit that the proposition as stated contains no limitation. Prof. Merriam tells me that we have it above now; but this proposition as stated does not recog- nize the limitations that are in the law as at present contained ; it recognizes no limitations whatever, and it seems to me before we adopt the proposition as broadly as it is stated here, we ought to look into it further and consider whether or not some limitation should be placed upon the power we are to confer upon the City Council. MR. JONES: In order that we have no ambiguity about the temporary use, I would like to ask Mr. Shedd if he would be willing to insert the word 1 ‘ temporary ’ ’ before the word ‘‘ users’’ in the first line, which reads 1 1 temporary users of space. ’ ’ MR. SHEDD: I would be glad to do so. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? (Cries of li question. ’ ’) THE CHAIRMAN : As many as fa- vor the adoption of Mr. Shedd ’s reso- lution, signify by saying aye — the adop- tion of Mr. Shedd ’s motion to substi- tute, signify by saying aye. MR. O’DONNELL: Roll call. THE CHAIRMAN : Do you want a roll call? The Secretary will call the roll upon Mr. Shedd ’s motion to sub- stitute the second alternative to No. 1 for the first alternative to No. 1 and No. 1, and the other alternatives. Yeas — Baker, Beebe, Bennett, Bros- seau, Burke, Carey, Church, Cole, Dixon, G. W., Eidmann, Erickson, Gansbergen, Hunter, Jones, Lathrop, Linehan, Mc- Goorty, Merriam, Owens, Post, Raymer, Robins, Shanahan, Shepard, Sunny, Swift, Yopicka, Werno, White, Zimmer —30. Nays— Brown, Eekhart, J. W., Hoyne, O’Dojinell, Revell — 5. (During roll call.) MR. POST: This is on the amend- ment offered by Mr. Shedd? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MR. POST : I vote no. I mean the amendment offered by Mr. Jones? THE CHAIRMAN : Yes. MR. JONES: Which was accepted. MR. POST : Then I vote aye. MR. CHURCH: Mr. Chairman, I de- sire to be recorded as voting aye. MR. BURKE: Mr. Chairman, I de- sire to be recorded as voting aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon Mr. Shedd ’s motion to adopt the second alternative to No. 1, in substitute to that section, the yeas are 30 and the noes 5, and the motion is carried. The Secretary will read No. G. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I ask for information. What constitutes a quorum in this body? THE CHAIRMAN: Sir? December 19 526 1906 ME. WHITE: What constitutes a quorum? what should constitute a quor- um? THE CHAIRMAN : The rules are silent upon the subject. MR. POST: I beg pardon. Roberts' Rules of Order govern this Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will look at Roberts' Rules of Order then. When there is no rule, it consists of the majority. The Chair desires to state that there are one or two members of the Convention in the adjoining room. MR. POST: Mr. Chairman, we have spent a good deal of time now, and in the absence of a quorum I move an adjournment. MR. SHANAHAN: I rise to a point of order. We have got a quorum pres- ent. If necessary we can have a roll call. THE CHAIRMAN: Let there be a call of the house to ascertain whether there is a quorum present. MR. SHEPARD: Is it necessary to take up that time? I move we proceed with the transaction of business. The Chair has already called upon the Secre- tary to read No. 6 MR. RAYMER : There is no ques- tion about a quorum present. MR. SHEPARD: Let us proceed to the transaction of business. MR. POST : I understand there are 38 members present. I withdraw my motion. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read No. 6. THE SECRETARY : No. 6, on page 64. No. 6, Section 10, revenue. MR. RAYMER : I move this section be not approved. MR. MERRIAM: I will ask whether Alderman Raymer will withhold this motion just a moment. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Merriam has the floor. MR. MERRIAM: The principles contained in section 6 have already been covered in chapter 7 under alternative 1. There is no need for further action. I therefore move that Section 6 be laid on the table. MR. RAYMER: I second that. THE CHAIRMAN : It lias been moved and seconded that No. 6 be not concurred in. MR. O’DONNELL: What page? THE SECRETARY: Page 54. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor say aye ; opposed, no ; motion car- ried. MR. MERRIAM: I rise to move the adoption of No. 7. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Merriam moves the adoption of No. 7. MR. REYELL: Will Mr. Merriam kindly explain THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Merriam is about to do so. MR. MERRIAM: Turning to page 499, you will find the text of the con- stitutional amendment under which the charter is being drawn up, about half way down — about two-thirds of the way down on the page. Among other things the general assembly has authority to provide: 1 ‘For the assessment of pro- perty and the levy and collection of taxes within said city for corporate - purposes in accordance with the principles of equality and uniformity prescribed by this constitution ; and may abolish all offices, the functions of which shall be otherwise provided for. ' ’ This No. 7, which has just been read by the secretary, merely provides for in- corporation in the City Charter of this grant of power specifically authorized by the constitutional amendment of 1904. The makers of the amendment having de- sired that the City of Chicago should have that power, that is among the few things they did enoumerate as being de- sirable to incorporate in an instrument of city government. About five lines above that you will also find in regard to the limit of the December 19 527 1906 debt of the city. The debt: “in its ag- gregate not exceeding 5 per centum of the full value of the taxable property within its limits as ascertained by the last assessment either for state or mu- nicipal purposes previous to the incur- ring of such indebtedness. ’ ’ That section contains a second recog- nition of the fact that the framers of the constitutional amendment desired to have incorporated in the charter, power for the city to provide a system of col- lection and assessment of its own. As a matter of fact the city did have such a system of assessment for a number of years prior to the act of 1872, and about 1867 or 1873, I believe it was, we had a system of city assessment and city collection of taxes. When the city adopted the act of 1872 and gave up its old special charter and came under the operation of the general law, then it gave up the special privileges they de- sired of providing a system of assess- ment and collection of their own. It was evident, of course, that such power in a municipality is, under certain cir- cumstances, highly desirable. It is a fundamental fact in regard to the reven- ue system — any system, that the city should have control over the value of the property. It is hard to conceive how a theory giving a revenue system to a municipality can be operated when you take away the power from the city to value its own property and collect the taxes levied on its own property. It would be like erecting a building and taking away the foundation from under it. You have no foundation for a revenue system unless the city has the power to assess property and collect the taxes upon it, because taxation is the backbone of the revenue system and the backbone of the city is valuation. It is not so much a matter of rate but the power to control valuation. As an ex- ample of this, you have, for instance, in the city of New York: When they de- sired to construct the subway or inter- borough railway system it had no money; they were up to the debt limit. They therefore searched about for a way to get money to provide for those neces- sary improvements. It could be got no other way, and they therefore decided to increase their valuation by a hori- zontal raise. They increased the valua- tion of the property in New York about one billion, seven hundred million dollars in four years, but at the same time, of course, they decreased their tax rate cor- respondingly. They were not raising any more money than before, but they had increased the valuation upon which the debt of the City of New York was calculated. If it were so desired, and w T e had the power in this city, we could also raise the valuation at any time it was thought fit. If it Avere necessary we could raise it or lower it as we be- lieved necessary in the discretion of the city. This, then, would be an important addition to the power that the city now possesses. This would not necessarily involve a duplicate assessment. Some of you may be inclined to think that we had two sets of assessors, a city assessor and a county assessor. This may or may not be, but it is not an essential part of the system. A city, if it thought fit, would duplicate existing taxing machin- ery, if it wanted to. What it is more likely to do is that it might put on a valuation of property in a city limits, and then that valuation will be con- clusive and inclusive for all other pur- poses. It might do that by its own act, and if that was unsatisfactory it might be done by agreement with the sanitary district. In future, of course, the state tax will drop out. It is now 50 cents on the $100. In the future it is likely that the general state tax for state purposes will disappear altogether. It will then be quite possible for the city which had this power to take over the work of assessing property and col- December 19 528 1906 leeting taxes on property, either, by giv- ing to the property a valuation — on all property within the limits of the city. If, as it has been said, it is uncon- stitutional to do that without the con- sent of these other bodies they may do it with their consent. There is a diver- sity of opinion as to whether or not the city has the power to make a valuation of its own and make that binding for sanitary district purposes. There is good opinion on both sides ; equally good opin- ion I think on both sides on that point. There could be no question, however, that they could do this by arrangement with the other bodies if they saw fit. The counties want to get rid of assessing property, and they want to transfer it to the city — to the government of the city. We are dealing for a long time ahead. It seems to me, therefore, that it is desirable to include in the charter a specific grant of power given by the state under the constitutional amend- ment. That is a part of the charter proposition for which many of us fought, and for which the City of Chicago con- tributed a large sum of money; it is a proposition which we demand from the State Legislature — or request, rather. We have spent a large sum of money in order to get it, and it would be a queer position to take, that having got this amendment which cost so much, we should refuse to insert the very things in the charter which we asked for in the charter amendment. It would be a pe- culiar stand to take. MR. REVELL: What is the num- ber? THE CHAIRMAN: Seven. MR. SHEPARD: I am sorry to part company with my friend Prof. Merriam on this proposition ; especially so in view of the fact that we traveled together through committee work all through the spring and summer, and, practically, thus far throughout the considerations of this Convention. But this question we parted company on in the beginning of last spring, and we still seem to be far apart. We both consider it an impor- tant matter; we both take decided op- posite views. This simply means in its logical con- clusion, at least, one more assessing tribunal, and followed out to its logical end another assessment tribunal, and a separate collection tribunal for every municipality within the boundaries of Cook County, and especially within the boundary limits of the City of Chicago. One for the County of Cook; one for the State of Illinois; one for the sani- tary district, and one for the City of Chicago — that many, at least. True, thig was put in the constitutional amendment that this power might be granted by the legislature. I do not know why that was put in there, un- less it was for the manifest reason that some future time in the evolution of legislation, in putting this great mu- nicipality upon a simple and consoli- dated basis, the county, and the city, and the sanitary district would all be consolidated into one municipality, and then this power of electing and consti- uting — of electing a city assessment tribunal and a collector for the collec- tion of the general taxes within that territory might be constituted. I can see no other reason and no other pur- pose why this was incorporated in the constitutional amendment. Manifestly it could not have been incorporated in it for that purpose. Without speaking at all on the constitution and validity — on the validity of this suggestion, I desire to speak just a moment upon its merits. Before that, however, I re- spectfully call the Convention’s atten- tion to the fact that the law committee has rendered an opinion that it was of doubtful validity. MR. MERRIAM: Not this propo- sition. MR. SHEPARD: Yes. December 19 529 1906 MR. MERRIAM: It was never ap- proved. MR. SHEPARD: This same propo- sition, except they changed a phrase a little bit. It is this proposition: The proposition is to create an assessing tribunal for the City of Chicago, sep- arate and apart from the assessing tri- bunals we have now for all of the tax- ing authorities within the State of Illi- nois. It proceeds on the assumption, perhaps, that some other municipality within this neighborhood lias an assess- ment tribunal of its own. That is wrong. Our present assessing tribunal is in the creation of the state. True, its powers are defined and limited to the territory within Cook County. But it is not a Cook County assessment tri- bunal; it is simply a function; a de- partment of the government of the State of Illinois, and is no more a coun- ty assessing tribunal than is the judi- ciary of this county, our circuit court, our superior court a county department, or purely county officials. They are simply departments of the state. So that the county has no assessing tri- bunal; the sanitary district has no as- sessing tribunal; the City of Chicago has no assessing tribunal. We have this one assessing tribunal: The Board of Assessors, the Board of Review sup- plemented by the State Board of Equal- ization, created and provided for by the general laws of the State of Illi- nois for the assessment of all the prop- erty within the County of Cook, and within each of its subdivisions, for all | purposes, for all taxing authorities who levy taxes upon any of the property within that territory. The only purpose of this resolution, the only purpose of creating a separate assessing tribunal of the City of Chi- cago and a separate Board of Assessors, is that their valuation will be higher, perchance, than the valuation fixed and made by the assessors now constituted by the state laws. Otherwise, if their valuation is the same, we should have two sets of officials or three, or four, or five, or six, returning at a great ex- pense — at that multiplied expense the same identical valuation for the exten- sion of taxes; so, if they did not return a different valuation they certainly would be of no use. Now assume that the purpose of this would be carried out, and the Board of Assessors for the City of Chicago and the Board of Asessors of the State of Illinois was as now constituted, and they returned a valuation some per cent, higher upon the property of the City of Chicago than the Board of As- sessors and the Board of Review as now constituted. You would then have a number of property owners going before the assessors of the City of Chicago and ascertaining how much their assessment was upon their homes for city taxes; they then would go over to the County Board of Assessors — if the tax payer had time, and could get away from his work, and ascertain how much the val- uation upon his home was for county taxes. Then he would go down to the sanitary district offices and ascertain, if he had time to go there, how much the assessment by the sanitary district assessors was upon his property for san- itary purposes. And then the state — the sovereignty, if it refused to adopt these subordinate boards of assessors created by a subordinate legislative body for the assessment of its property for its own taxes, it would also create and retain its own assessing tribunal and it would have to go through it all. And why should not the school board have ( a separate assessing tribunal, and I the parks and the other departments of city government? Then, after he had ascertain ml the different assessments he would find out his assessment from some source of the different levies .and he would go to the county clerk, and if lie could not compute the taxes himself I from that complicated system, he would December 19 530 1906 go to the county collector and try to ascertain how much — or, rather, not to the county clerk, but to this new col- lector for the collection of city taxes in the city hall, presumably. He would try to ascertain how much his city taxes were. And if he had money enough he would go to the county office and ascertain and pay his county taxes; he would go to the sanitary district and ascertain and pay his sanitary district taxes, and so on about town he would go, if he had time and money and ability to pay all of his taxes, unless in this loss of time he had failed to accumulate enough money to pay his taxes. There is no earthly good accom- plished by this resolution except this one thing I know of. The City of Chi- cago has an independent board of asses- sors and an independent collector. Now, we have long ago, as Professor Merriam pointed out, departed from that. A city assessor was established in 1872 or 1870, and within one or two or three years assessed property for city purposes. That was repealed at an early date. We have retained the old county government, and in the dif- ferent townships, property was valued and assessed by a district tribunal whose jurisdiction extended only to the limits of that county. That was con- trary to public policy as conceded by the citizens of the county, and a con- solidation took place and the township function was wiped out and the State of Illinois created one single tribunal for the assessment of all of the proper- ty of all of the citizens in this com- mnitv. This would simply go back to the old form of a multiple of assessing tri- bunals with none of the virtues of that system and with some of the Vices that that system did not have, namely, that this would be worse than the old sys- tem, because a single piece of proper- ty, if this is carried to its logical con- clusion, would have a variety of assess- ments placed upon it and no man, whether he be rich or poor, whether he be a purchaser of a contemplated seller of property, could ever forecast for any length of time in advance what his taxes or assessments would be, and what the cost of maintaining the machinery in the assessment and col- lection of taxes might be, or anything concerning his property in relation to the payment of his fair share of the public burden. I do not care to take up the time of this Convention further, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that this is a distinct step back in the development of the laws for the betterment and advance- ment of this municipality, and I sin- cerely hope that this will be rejected, and that it will remain rejected until the time arrives when we can reach for- ward and ask to avail ourselves of that constitutional provision, namely, the consolidation of the city, county and the sanitary district, and then we can with propriety ask for an assessing tri- bunal whose jurisdiction is limited only to the boundaries of the City of Chi- cago, that consolidated territory being established. MR. SHANAHAN: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe I desire to take up very much time after the speech of Mr. Shepard, who went into this matter very thoroughly indeed. In theory, the idea of having a city assessor is very good, and would work probably to the advantage of the City of Chicago; but there is no way in which we could com- pel the County of Cook from having an assessing board and coming into the City of Chicago and making a gen- eral assessment for county and state purposes. This means having an addi- tional taxing body in the City of Chi- cago. The great trouble for a number I of years at Springfield has been that it was impossible to get an amendment to the constitution presented to the people I to be voted upon, because the people December 19 531 1906 in the City of Chicago, and the people outside of the City of Chicago, resid- ing in the County of Cook, could not agree among themselves. The outly- ing towns in the County of Cook were always opposed to the constitutional amendment that was presented to the legislature, and the constitutional amendment which was presented and passed and was voted on by the people in 1894 was a compromise amendment, whereby that any time in the' future that the limits of the City of Chicago would become co-extensive with the limits of the County of Cook, that then we might have a city assessing body. I do not believe, gentlemen, that you could make any headway by putting in the charter a provision for a city as- sessor, and I hope that that amendment will be voted down. MR. MERRIAM: I would like to ask Mr. Shanahan a question: What do you understand to be the real meaning of this phrase, ‘ 1 assessments either for city or municipal purposes. ” You were a member of the legislature, what is the meaning of that? MR. SHANAHAN: I take it, if this provision was put in the city charter that an agreement could be made with the county officials and with the sani- tary officials and the city officials to ac- cept valuations made by the city board of assessors, we would take the valua- tion for the county purposes and city purposes and sanitary purposes. MR. MERRIAM: It would be im- possible under this agreement. MR. SHANAHAN: No, it would not be impossible. MR. MERRIAM: Yes, to carry it out under that agreement. MR. SHANAHAN: If you are go- ing to make your compromise with these other municipalities, I think you can make them with these municipali- ties. MR. MERRIAM: You have to get the power before you can make a com- promise, first. MR. SHANHAN: Yes, sir. MR. MERRIAM: You have to get the power first. MR. SHANAHAN: Certainly, you have to get the power first. MR. MERRIAM: If you do not have the power, you cannot negotiate; you have to show your credentials. THE CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion upon the question? If not, the Secretary will call the roll. MR. ROBINS: This question has been a surprise to me. I don’t know whether it has been a surprise — this discussion which has grown out of this provision has been a surprise. I plead guilty to all the stupidity necessary to excuse me for being surprised, but I have been really surprised. It seems to me this is one of the most important propositions we have had to pass upon. I do not feel ready to pass upon it at this time. I find an explanation here apparently of what I have listened to in the past three or four years without quite under- standing what it meant, a thing that has always puzzled me, which is some- thing I do not like to have, but a posi- tion I am frequently in. I have heard it said for years almost, if you elect a Republican mayor, there will be plenty of money for Chicago. I never quite understood why that was so, but I think I now understand it as a result of this discussion here this afternoon; that in other words, a Republican mayor in Chicago would be received more friendly by the Republican as- sessing authorities of Cook County, there would be more money for city purposes. That is my conclusion from this discussion here this afternoon. Now, I think that one of the worst forms of bad government is that form of bad government that results from irresponsibilities. I believe, in common with many other of my fellow citizens, December 19 532 1906 that we have had occasion to complain to the individual members of the coun- cil and various representatives and heads of departments of the conditions existing in certain parts of our city and under certain departments of the city government. At every point wherever I have made complaint, wherever I have taken up the situation I have found the claim that there was insuffi- cient money to carry on the functions of the city. I realized that this was one of the richest cities in the world; I realized that there was here business and other institutions that would en- able this city to run its business in first class shape; I haye felt that until you had enough money in various de- partments of the city government to really care for that government, you could not get the kind of responsibili- ty you ought to have, so that you could carry home the failure of that depart- ment to carry out its clear duties. Take the streets of Chicago, for just an instance; I suppose there is not any- body who does not recognize the tre- mendous loss of property, the tremen- dous loss of general comfort and health that has resulted from the condition of our streets; and I question, Mr. Chair- man, if there has been any answer made more frequently to the com- plaints of the defects in our city organ- ization than that, “we have not got the money. ” It is a proposition I would like very much to overlook, but I would like to know more about it, to give it more careful thought before I vote upon it. If this matter is forced to the vote of this Convention at this time, I shall act with what seems to me to be the majority, if I can find out what it is; but it is something that I would like to take under considera- tion. I shall vote with what seems to be the majority, if I can find it, and then move for a reconsideration if I find I have voted upon the wrong side, so far as my sentiments are concerned. MR. MERRIAM: It would be pret- ty hard to ascertain mat. MR. ROBINS: I realize that, from past experience. I should like to know the history of how it was that the city assessment passed away, and the county assessment took its place. I would like to know what were the facts about that. I would like to know what are the legal conditions concerning this position of the city in making its own assessment. It seems 'to me Prof. Merriam has sug- gested a consideration to each one of us, and we should be careful in voting upon this matter. I should like to know about this condition in which Chi- cago now stands, I should like to know how this condition in which Chicago has been ever since I have known Chi- cago — one of poverty, -one of excuse for failure of municipal administration, I should like to know how that condition was reached. It seems to me we have struck the way by which this condition may be changed, if we are careful. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am going to move that this question be deferred, if I can get a second. MR. BEILFUSS: I second the mo- tion. MR. COLE: I can probably en- lighten the gentleman some on the proposition he seeks information upon, the manner in which the change was made, if he wants me to; I cannot tell him how the change was made from city assessments to county assessments, but I can tell him how the change was made from township and other assess- ments to the present way. It is rather an interesting history. The facts of the case are these: We had introduced bills upon the question of city assessments time and time again, and when these bills came before the legislature they were laid aside session after session, and nothing was done; in some way or other, they always got lost, each one seemed to meet the same fate, until in 1897 there were three independent December 19 533 1906 assessors nominated, one from the south, one from the west, and one from the north side; and one day — in the meantime a bill was before the legisla- ture to have a certain system of as- sessments go through, which was being hindered, and one day a very prominent leader in the Republican party came to me and said, “‘Look here, Cole, what are you fellows trying to do? You know you can’t elect these fellows ymu have nominated, and you will be turned down; you just elect a Demo- cratic assessor and he will hold you all up.” I says, “I know that perfectly well; I know this man will stop you. We may not be able to elect these men this year, but we will elect them sooner or later.” I told him that there were independent candidates running for the office of assessor of the south town and of the west town and of the north town, that they might not be elected this year, but next year they would be, that next year there would be independent candidates for asses- sor in each one of those towns, and that there would be independent candidates for assessors in all of those towns un- til the people down in Springfield passed a new revenue law, and that was the only way they could get out of it. I said, “ that is the only way you will get out of it, and the proba- bilities are they will elect Democratic assessors who will serve you,” and that was done within a week, and the bill was passed. Gentlemen, this is a very important matter and one that should be consid- ered, therefore I am not in favor of voting on the motion at the present time. I simply wanted to make this ex- planation to enlighten Mr. Robins as to how this came about. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? (Cries of “question” and “roll call.”) THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary call the roll. MR. ROBINS: Well, I will with- draw the motion, and let the matter roll along. THE CHAIRMAN: The roll will be called upon Mr. Merriam ’s motion to adopt No. 7. MR. G. W. DIXON: I rise to make the point that we are now without a quorum. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair just counted thirty-six, including myself. (Cries of “roll call.”) THE CHAIRMAN : The only way it can be determined is to call the roll. MR. POST: Is not a quorum thirty- eight? . THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, it so ap- pears. Another one has just arrived. (Cries of “roll call.”) THE CHAIRMAN: Will you call the roll upon the motion to adopt? Yeas — Burke, Eckhart, J. W.; Line- han, McGoorty, Owens, Post, Robins, Yopicka, Werno, Zimmer — 10. Nays — Baker, Beebe, Beilfuss, Ben- nett, BrQSseau, Brown, Dixon, G. W.; Eidmann, Erickson, Gansbergen, Hoyne, Lathrop, Pendarvis, Raymer, Revell, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Sunny, White— 20. Present but not voting — Church, Cole, Foreman, Jones, Merriam, Smul- ski — 6. (During roll call.) MR. CHURCH: In view of the fact that this is an important matter, I am not ready to vote on this question now. THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed with the roll call. MR. COLE: T think it is a mistake trying to take a vote on such an im- portant question as this at the present time. I desire to be noted as present and not voting. MR. MERRIAM: Mr. Chairman? THE CHAIRMAN: For what pur- pose do you arise? December 19 534 1906 MR. MERRIAM: Is a motion in or- der now? THE CHAIRMAN: No, sir, not pending a roll call. MR. G. W. DIXON: I prefer to be recorded as being present and not vot- ing. MR. SHANAHAN: Mr. Chairman? THE CHAIRMAN: For what pur- pose does Mr. Shanahan arise? MR. SHANAHAN: To have the question stated. I think there are quite a few here that don’t know what they are voting on. Some people think they are voting on Mr. Robins’ motion to defer, and others think they are voting on Mr. Merriam’s propositon. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary read the pending motion. THE SECRETARY: No. 7, at page 54. THE CHAIRMAN: The roll call will now proceed. MR. ROBINS: The question comes upon the adoption of that motion? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir, upon the adoption of that question. MR. HOYNE: Considering, the fact that ninety-two per cent, of the voters are in the City of Chicago electing the present board of assessors, and the ob- ject of this Convention being to con- solidate our taxing bodies, I vote no. MR. JONES: I am not ready to vote upon this question. I am in doubt in my own mind as to what should be done at this time, therefore I prefer not to vote. MR. SMULSKI: I do not believe that I am quite ready to vote on this proposition. I believe, however, that our present system of assessment is not the proper one, and I would like to vote intelligently on this matter. For that reason I would like to be excused from voting. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I should like to change my vote to no. THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. White votes no. MR. G. W. DIXON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recorded as voting no. MR. MERRIAM: I would like to be recorded, Mr. Chairman, as voting aye, at the same time protesting against taking a vote on so important a prob- lem as this when there is hardly a quorum present. THE CHAIRMAN: If it is demon- strated that there is not a quorum pres- ent, there will be no action taken. It is beyond the power of the Chair to declare a quorum or lack of quorum. MR. POST: I raise the point of no quorum, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Just wait until we get this vote, that will demonstrate it. There are seventy-four delegates; necessary for a quorum, thirty-eight. There are thirty-six delegates present, consequently there is not a quorum present. MR. SHEPARD: What is the vote? THE CHAIRMAN: The ayes are ten and the nays are twenty. The Con- vention stands adjourned until tomor- row evening, at 7:30 o’clock, at which time this matter should be taken up for disposition before taking up the educa- tional bill. The first vote will be taken upon this proposition. The meeting stands adjourned. And the Convention stood adjourned to meet Thursday, December 20, 1906, at 7:30 o’cloek p. m. Secretary. December 19 535 1906 MEMORANDA. These memoranda indicate the various matters adopted by the Convention. (See page 50 and succeeding pages of the proceedings. I. SCOPE OF PROPOSED LEGIS- LATION. Action on all paragraphs under this section has been deferred. II. CONSOLIDATION. 1. The corporate authorities existing at present for the government of the park systems of Chicago shall be abol- ished and the management of the parks shall become a department of the city government. 2. The administration of the public school system of the city of Chicago and of the Public Library shall con- stitute departments of the city govern- ment. III. THE MAYOR. 1. The charter shall continue sub- stantially the provisions of the pres- ent laws regarding the qualifications and executive functions of the mayor. 2. The charter shall continue the provisions of the present laws regard- ing the relation of the mayor to the city council. Resolved, that it is the sense of this Convention that a clause be inserted in the charter designating a city official who shall act as mayor during the ab- sence or inability of the mayor. First Alternative to 2 b. The mayor shall have a right to a seat in the city council, but shall have no vote. He shall have the right to speak and present messages and intro- duce measures subject to the general rules of procedure of the city council. Second Alternative to 2: The charter shall continue the pres- ent provisions of the law regarding the relation of the mayor to the city coun- cil, except that he shall not preside at the meetings of the city council, but the city council shall elect its own presiding officer from its members. 3. The veto power of the mayor shall be as now prescribed by law. 4. The term of office of the mayor shall be four years. IY. ELECTIONS. First alternative to 1 : Elective city officers shall be nominated under a sys- tem of direct primaries, with appropri- ate provision for independent nomina- tions by petition. 2. The names of all the nominees for each office shall be printed on the ballot under the title of the office for which they are candidates, in alphabeti- cal order, and the designation of the party, if any, to which they belong. The following resolution on the sub- ject of suffrage for women is still pend- ing: 3. The charter shall contain no pro- vision for conferring the right of suf- frage on women. 4. a. The election of all city offi- cers, including those for the municipal court, shall be held in the spring. Pro- vided, however, that judges of the mu- nicipal court shall be elected at a time when no offices other than judicial are to be filled. 5. Candidates and political commit- tees shall be required to make sworn statements of receipts and expenditures of any campaign for nomination or election. December 19 V. CIVIL SERVICE. 1. All departments of the city gov- ernment shall be under an appropriate civil service law. Alternative to 1: a. The civil service law shall apply to the department of public parks. The application of the civil service law to the department of public parks shall not operate in and of itself to dis- charge the present employees. b. The civil service law shall apply to tne municipal court. The Bailiff and Chief Clerk of the Municipal Court shall be subject to re- moval by a majority of the judges of the court, after a hearing, for incompe- tency, inefficiency, malfeasance or mis- feasance in office. The reasons for such removal shall be specified in writing and shall be spread at large upon the records of the court. Section 2 of Civil Service, together with resolution printed in the proceed- ings of December 6, have been referred to the Committee on Municipal Elec- tions, Appointment and Tenure of Office, with instructions to report to the Con- vention within ten days. VI. THE CITY COUNCIL. The charter shall provide for redis- tricting the city into seventy wards, of compact and contiguous territory, and with an equitable distribution of area and population, as soon as possible after the adoption of this charter, one aider- man to be elected from each ward. The city shall thereafter be redis- tricted by the City Council every ten years after the federal census has been taken, but no more than seventy wards shall be made. 2. The compensation of aldermen shall be at the rate of thirty-five hun- dred dollars per annum. The term of office of aldermen shall be four years. 1906 The aldermen shall be elected at the same time as the mayor. VII. POWERS OF THE CITY COUN- CIL IN GENERAL. 1. The powers of the city council shall be as now prescribed by law, ex- cept as modified by this charter. The city council shall have all powers of local legislation which can, under the con- stitution, be vested in a municipality; subject to the constitution of the state, the provisions of the charter, and the general laws of the state. 2. The specification of particular powers shall never be construed as a limitation upon the general powers granted by the charter; it being in- tended to grant and bestow upon the City of Chicago all the powers of mu- nicipal government which can constitu- tionally be delegated to it by the legislature, and which are not expressly prohibited to it by this charter, or by the constitution of the state; and are not in conflict with any general law of the state. 3. No ordinance shall be passed finally on the day it is introduced, except when approved by an affirmative vote of two- thirds of all the members of the city council. VIII. POWERS OF THE CITY COUN- CIL WITH REGARD TO OFFICES. The office of City Clerk shall cease to be a Charter office, and the City Council shall have power by ordinance to provide for the method of choosing the City Clerk and to provide for the duty of the City Clerk. The City Treasurer shall be ex-officio city collector. 3. The City Council shall have power to investigate any department of the city government and the official acts and conduct any city officer and the making, terms, and performance of 536 December 19 537 1906 any public contract, and for the purpose of ascertaining facts in connection with such investigation to compel the attend- ance of witnesses and the production of material documents and books. IX. POLICE POWER. 1. The police power of the city shall extend to the prevention of crime, to the preservation and advancement of local peace, safety, morals, health, order and comfort, and to the prevention of fraud and extortion within the community, by measures of regulation, licensing, require- ment of bonds, inspection, registration, restraint and prohibition, as well as by the establishment of municipal services. X. REVENUE. GENERAL TAXATION. Section 1. The City Council of the City of Chicago shall annually in the first quarter of its fiscal year, levy a general tax for all city, school, park and library purposes for such year, not ex- ceeding in the aggregate, exclusive of the amounts levied for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness per centum of the assessed value of the taxable property of said city as assessed and equalized according to law for gen- eral taxation. The said City Council in its annual levy shall specify the re- spective amounts levied for the pay- ment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, the amount levied for general city purposes, amount levied for educational purposes, the amount levied for school building purposes, the amount levied for park purposes and the amount levied for li- brary purposes. The county clerk shall extend upon the collector’s warrant all of such taxes, subject to the limita- tion herein contained, in a single col- umn as the City of Chicago tax. In case the aggregate amount levied, ex- clusive of the amount levied for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, shall exceed per centum of such assessed value such ex- cess shall be disregarded, and the resi- due only treated as certified for exten- sion. In such case all items in such tax levy except those for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, shall be re- duced pro rata. The city treasurer of the City of Chicago shall keep separate funds in conformity to said tax levy, which funds shall be paid out by him, upon order of the proper authority for the purposes only for which the same were levied. 2. The Board of Education of the City of Chicago shall in January of each year prepare and transmit to the City Council a statement of its receipts and expenditures for the preceding calen- dar year stating therein the sources of its receipts and the several objects and purposes of its expenditures. It shall also prepare and transmit to the City Council in January of each year an es- timate of its expenditures for the cur- rent calendar year, stating therein the several objects and purposes of such expenditures. 3. The Board of Park Commissioners of the City of Chicago shall in January of each year prepare and transmit to the City Council a statement of its re- ceipts and expenditures for the preceding calendar year stating therein the sources of its receipts and the several objects and purposes of its expendi- tures. It shall also prepare and transmit to the City Council in January of each year an estimate of its expendi- tures for the current year, stating therein the several objects and purposes of such expenditures. 4. The Board of Library Directors of the City of Chicago shall in January of each year prepare and transmit to the City Council a statement of its receipts and ex- penditures for the preceding calendar December 19 538 1906 year, stating therein the sources of its receipts and the several objects and pur- poses of its expenditures. It shall also prepare and transmit to the City Council in January of each year an estimate of its expenditures for the current year, stating thereing the several objects and purposes of such expenditures. Action on the following propositions has been deferred pending the report of the special commitee on revenue in- formation. Alternative to 1: a. The limit of the tax rate fixed by the charter shall not apply to taxes levied for school purposes, but taxes shall be levied for school build- ing and educational purposes as now provided by law. b. The limit of the tax rate to be fixed by the charter shall not apply to taxes levied for library purposes, but the City Council shall annually levy for library purposes a tax of not less than one mill and not more than one and one-half mill on the dollar on all taxable property in the city. c. The City Council shall have power to levy annually a tax of two mills on the dollar on all taxable property for a police pension fund. 2. The City Council shall have power to levy a tax of one per cent, additional to the rate fixed by the above resolu- tion for a specific purpose or purposes, provided that such additional tax levy shall have been approved by a major- ity of those voting on the question at a general or special election. 3. a. The City Council shall have power to tax and license, or either, any trade, occupation or business carried on w r holly or in part within the city limits, and all persons, firms or corporations owning or using franchises or privi- leges. 4. a. The City Council shall also have power to tax or license all wheeled vehicles used upon the streets of the city, or any particular class of such vehicles. The income therefrom shall be used in the repair and improvement of streets and alleys of the city ex- clusively. Alternative to 5: The City Council shall have power to make local im- provements by special assessment or by special taxation of contiguous prop- erty or otherwise; but not more than 50 per cent, of the cost of repaving any street or alley shall thus be im- posed upon contiguous property, after such street or alley has once been paved, and the expense thereof paid in whole or in part by special assessment or special taxation. The following proposition is still pending: 7. The charter shall provide for pow- ers to be vested in the city for the assessment of property and the collec- tion of taxes within the city for cor- porate purposes in accordance with the principles of equality and uniformity prescribed by the constitution. XI. INDEBTEDNESS. 1. The charter shall vest in the city the power to assume and incur debts and issue bonds in the manner and to the extent that such power is permitted to be granted by the constitutional amendment of 1904. XII. EXPENDITURES. 1. The provisions of the present city act regarding the annual appropriation ordinanc, the limitation of expendi- tures and contracts by such appropria- tions, the keeping of a separate fund for each appropriation, and the require- ment of warrants for payments, shall be substantially embodied in the charter. December 19 539 1906 Xm. PROPERTY. 1. The city may acquire property by purchase or condemnation for any pur- pose for which it may exercise the power of taxation. The following paragraph together with all substitutes and amendments thereto as printed in the proceedings of December 14, 1906, have been re-re- ferred to the Committee on Rules, Pro- cedure and General Plan. The com- mittee report will be found under “Res- olutions. ’ ’ 2. The city may so acquire property outside of as well as within the city lim- its for any municipal purpose. XIV. CONTRACTS. 1. Municipal services may be per- formed and municipal works carried out by the city directly or by means of con- tract. XY. STREETS AND PUBLIC PLACES. All private temporary users of space above or below the level of streets, al- leys or other public places shall pay compensation to the city according to some definite scale to be fixed by gen- eral ordinance. This provision shall not apply to grants for public utilities. XYI. PUBLIC UTILITIES. 1. The provisions of the Mueller law and the limitations contained .therein (including the twenty-year limit on franchises), except as herein otherwise provided, shall be extended to all in- tramural railways, subways, telephone, telegraph, gas, electric lighting and power plants, and other local public utility works operated in, over, under or upon the streets and public places of the city, also to docks, wharves and their necessary appurtenances. 2. The present powers regarding water works and water supply shall be con- tinued. 3. Any consent granted by the city for the private operation of public util- ity works shall be made subject to the continuing exercise of the city’s street and police powers concerning the struc- ture or works permitted, whether re- served in the grant or not. Alternative to 4: Such consent hereafter granted, shall further be subject to' the power of the city, whether expressly reserved in the grant or not, to make reasonable regu- lations of the charges to be made in the operation of such public utilities. The city shall have no power to grant away or limit the subsequent exercise of tills right, except that the question of rea- sonableness of any such regulation shall always be determined with due regard to the provisions and limitations of the grant under which such public utility is being operated. 5. Such consent shall further be sub- ject to the right of the city to require adequate service and reasonable exten- sions at all times. No city officer or employe shall di- rectly or indirect^ ask for, demand or accept for his own use, or for the use of another, any free pass, frank, gratui- ty, gratuitous service, or discrimina- tion from any person or corporation holding or using any franchise, privi- lege or license granted by the city. But this prohibition shall not ex- tend to the furnishing of free transpor- tation to members of the police and fire departments while on duty. The charter shall contain appropriate provisions for the enforcement of this prohibition. The following proposition as offered by Mr. Snow (and amended from the floor by Messrs. Rosenthal and Shepard) is still pending. Amend proposition 1, Section 16, Pub- lic Utilities, by adding the following: Provided that when the city shall own December 19 540 1906 and operate a public utility then and in such case the city shall keep separate accounts for each public utility, and that the income from each service shall be used solely for the benefit of that utility exactly as though it were an independent business enterprise; and reasonable sinking funds, requirements for improvements or extensions, the price of or charge for the service ren- dered or commodity furnished by such utility shall be lowered, to the end that the patrons of such utility shall direct- ly secure the greatest benefit of the city’s ownership thereof, and no such utility shall be so operated as to render its charge for service an indirect form of taxation. XVII. PARKS, BOULEVARDS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS. 1. The management of the parks and parkways and small parks, and of any forest preserve or outer belt park sys- tem shall be vested in a board of park commissioners consisting of nine mem- ber who shall be appointed by the mayor of the City of Chicago — three from the West Side, three from the South Side and three from the North Side; three for a term of two years, three for a term of four years, and three for a term of six years, their successors to be ap- pointed for a term of six years. Any vacancy which may occur shall be filled by appointment of the mayor, for the unexpired term. No appointment, how- ever, shall be acted upon until at a subsequent meeting of the City Coun- cil. The park commissioners shall be ap- pointed by the mayor, with the consent of two-thirds of the members of the City Council. The following paragraph was de- ferred, for consideration together with the subject of Revenue. 2. Taxes may be levied and bonds is- sued for park purposes by the City Council only upon the request of the park board; and park funds shall be paid out only upon the order of the park board. XVIII. EDUCATION. Section XVIII and alternatives stand as a special order. XIX. LIBRARY. 1. The management of the public library shall be vested in a board of nine library directors, constituted as at present, and with the present powers and duties, except as herein otherwise provided. 2. The term of office of members of the library board shall be six years, three retiring every two years. 3. The library board may establish branch libraries and reading rooms, sub- ject to the approval of the City Coun- cil. XX. PENAL, CHARITABLE AND REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS. 1. The charter shall grant to the city, in addition to the powers which it has now: a. Authority to maintain alms- houses. b. Authority to maintain free lodg- ing houses, and free employment bu- reaus in connection therewith. c. Authority to maintain creches for infants. d. Authority to maintain training schools for dependent and indigent children. 2. The city shall have the power to contract with the county of Cook or otherwise provide for the detentions, housings and care of indigent persons, prisoners, or dependent or delinquent children. This section shall contain a clause that the City of Chicago can contract December 19 541 1906 with the county of Cook for the erec- tion and maintenance of a Juvenile Court building. XXI. INITIATIVE AND REFEREN- DUM. The charter shall provide that any or- dinance granting any franchise or the use of any street or alley or space below as well as above the level of the sur- face of the streets, alleys and other public places for any public utility, shall not go into effect until sixty (60) days after the passage thereof, and if within that time twenty (20) per cent, of the voters of the city petition for the submission of such ordinance to popular vote at the next succeeding general or special election, such ordinance shall not go into effect until and unless at such election it shall have been ap- proved by a majority of the voters vot- ing upon the question. XXII. RELATION OF THE CHAR- TER TO OTHER LAWS, AND AMENDMENTS TO CHARTER. The following section has been re- ferred to the LAW COMMITTEE for an opinion as to its constitutionality. 1. Any act of the general assembly that shall be passed after the adoption of this charter relating to the govern- ment or the affairs of the cities of the state or of cities containing a stated ! number of inhabitants or over shall be construed as not applying to the City of Chicago. 2. The charter shall re-enact the pro- visions (not inconsistent with these res- olutions) of the existing laws applicable to the government of the City of Chi- cago, and shall vest in the City Council power to amend such of these provisions as the charter may specify. The following sections have been re- ferred to the LAW COMMITTEE for an opinion as to their constitutionality: 3. The City Council shall have power to amend any part of this charter with the approval of three-fifths of those voting at the proposed change at any election, provided that the tax rate established by this charter shall not be increased nor the twenty-year limit on franchise be altered [extended], nor the municipal court act amended, nor any provision be made for the exercise of any power not strictly local or munici- pal in its character. 4. The charter shall make provision for submission to popular vote of amendments to the charter, proposed by a petition of per cent, of the voters of the city, such proposed amendments to become part of the charter when ap- proved by a majority of the votes cast at the election (or: upon the question). Provided, that in this manner the tax rate established by this charter shall not be increased, nor the twenty-year limit on franchises be altered, nor the | municipal court act amended, nor any I provision be made for the exercise of any power not strictly local or munici- pal in its character. 5. Nothing in this act shall be con- strued to modify, impair or affect or to confer upon the City Council power to pass any ordinance modifying, impair- ing or conflicting with the provisions of Section 18 of an act entitled “An act to provide for the annexation of cities, incorporated towns and villages or parts of same to cities, incorporated towns and villages” approved April 25th, 1889. December 19 542 1906 Resolutions offered from the floor of the Convention, but not acted upon. BY. MR. SHEPARD: Resolved, That in any act providing for the formation and disbursement of the police pension fund the following provision be incorporated: That the members of the police de- partment to be included in the bene- fits of such pension fund shall be as follows: The General Superintendent of Po- lice, Assistant General Superintendent of Police, Inspectors, Captains, Lieu- tenants, Sergeants, Patrolmen, Patrol Drivers, Superintendent of Horses, Su- perintendent of Construction, Superin- tendent Bureau of Identification, As- sistant Superintendent Bureau of Iden- tification, Secretary of the Police De- partment, Private Secretary to the Gen- eral Superintendent of Police, Police Custodian Stolen Property, Chief Clerk Secretary’s office, Clerk in Secretary’s office, Chief Clerk in Detective Bu- reau, Chief Operator, Assistant Chief Operator, Operators, Drillmaster, Chief Matron, Matrons, Feed Inspector, De- partment Printer, Vehicle Inspectors, Photographer, Assistant Photographer, Stenographers, Supply Drivers, Finger Print Expert and such other mem- bers as may hereafter be provided for by ordinance. BY MR. BENNETT: Resolved, that the present laws re- lating to firemen ’s pensions be retained and included in the charter. BY MESSRS WERNO AND ROSEN- THAL: Chapter 7, section 1, alternative 1. In addition to all the legislative powers now conferred upon it by the general cities and villages act and the amendments thereof, the charter shall vest in the city council the power to regulate the legal observance of the weekly day of rest, commonly called Sunday; and the sale of liquors by bona fide athletic, charitable, edu- cational, fraternal, musical and social associations, corporations and societies at social gatherings, or entertainments conducted or held by them only; and in general all powers of local legisla- tion which may under the constitution be vested in a municipality. BY MR. BROWN: Permission shall not be given to any person to retail any goods, fruit or vegetables from a wagon or other vehic!-\ BY MR. SNOW: Amend proposition 1, Section 16, Pub- lic Utilities, by striking out all after the word “city” in line 11, and insert- ing in lieu thereof the following: “also to docks and wharves.” BY MR. TAYLOR: A permanent educational commission of advisory capacity shall be appointed by the mayor with the approval of the council, to consist of seventeen mem- bers, who shall serve without compensa- tion, including the superintendent of December 19 543 1906 the public schools and the librarian of the public library, who shall be mem- bers ex officio. Each other member shall hold office until another person is ap- pointed to succeed him. It shall be the function of the educa- tional commission to tender advice and recommendations regarding the public school system of the city to correlate the educational forces of the city and to prevent unnecessary duplication of ac- tivities by exercising their influence to- word co-ordinating the various educa- tional and scientific institutions of the city. BY MR. TAYLOR: I. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCA- TION. The City of Chicago shall constitute one school district. The public school system of the city shall be under the management and control of a depart- ment of education at the head of which there shall be a Board of Education, and no power by this charter vested in the Board of Education or in any officer of the department shall be exercised by the City Council except as by this char- ter otherwise provided, n. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION. The Board of Education shall consist of fifteen members who shall be ap- pointed by the mayor of the city by and with the approval of two-thirds of the City Council at a meeting subsequent to that at which they shall have been nominated. They shall serve for a term of four years, except that on the first appoint- ment of the board three members shall be chosen for one year, four for two years, four for three years, and four for four years, and annually thereafter members shall be appointed to suc- ceed those whose terms expire. The members of the Board of Educa- tion shall serve without compensation. To be eligible for appointment to the board a person shall be at least thirty i years of age and a resident and citizen of the United States and of the City of Chicago for at least five years im- mediately preceding the appointment. III. SCHOOL PROPERTY. The charter shall re-enact in sub- stance the provisions of the existing law regarding the acquisition, tenure, and disposition of property for school purposes, but no real estate shall be leased for a term longer than five years, nor shall the terms of any existing lease be altered without the concurrence of the City Council. IV. POWERS AND ADMINISTRA- TIVE DUTIES OF THE BOARD. In addition to the powers now vested in it by law, the board of education shall have power to establish as well as maintain schools of all grades and kinds, including normal schools, schools for defectives and delinquents, schools for the blind, the deaf and the crip- pled, schools or classes in manual train- ing, constructional and avocational teach- ing, domestic arts and physical culture, extension schools and lecture courses, and all other educational institutions and facilities. It shall have the power to co-operate with the juvenile court and to make ar- rangements with the public and other libraries and museums for the purpose of extending the privileges of the pub- lic library and museums to the attend- ants of schools and the public in the neighborhood of the schools. The board of education shall have the power to fix the school age of pupils, which in kindergartens shall not be under four years and in grade schools shall not be under six years. V. REVENUE. The charter shall preserve the provi- sions of the present law regarding the levy and collection of taxes for school purposes, except that it shall not em- body the limitation of the power to support schools to the period of nine I months of the year. December 19 544 1906 The provisions of the present law re- garding the care and custody of school funds shall be re-enacted. The board of education shall have power by and with the concurrence of the City Council to issue bonds to raise money for purchasing school sites and for the erection of school buildings, and provision shall be made for the pay- ment of such bonds out of the school building tax. VI. EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF THE BOARD. Rules of the board of education shall be enaeted or changed, money appro- priated or expended, salaries fixed or changed, courses of instruction and text- books adopted or changed (subject to additional provisions hereinafter con- tained), only at regular meetings of the board of education, and by a vote of the majority of the full membership of the board of education, and upon such propositions, and upon all propositions requiring for their adoption at least a majority of all the members of the board, the ayes and nays be taken and recorded. VII. OFFICERS. The board of education shall annual- ly choose one of its members as presi- dent, and one as vice-president of the board. The board shall appoint as ex- ecutive officers a superintendent of schools and a business manager, and may also appoint or provide for the ap- pointment of such other officers and employes as it may deem necessary, and shall, subject to the provisions of this charter prescribe their duties, compen- sations and terms of office, but the term of office of the superintendent of schools and of the business manager shall not be less than four years. And the sal- ary of no officer shall be lowered dur- ing his term of office. The requirement that an officer of the city shall at the time of his appoint- ment be a resident of the city, shall not apply to the superintendent of schools. The appointment and removal of the superintendent of schools, and a busi- ness manager, and of such other princi- pal officers directly appointed by the board, as the board may by general or- dinance designate, shall not be subject to the civil service law, but they shall be removable only for cause, by a vote of not less than two-thirds of all the members of the board, upon written charges to be heard by the board on due notice to the officers charged therewith, but pending the hearing of the charges, such officers may by two-thirds vote be suspended by the board. VIII. SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS. (1.) The superintendent of schools shall have a seat in the board of educa- tion, but no vote. (2.) Appointments, promotions and transfers of teachers, principals and other educational and attendance officers shall be made, and text-books and educational apparatus shall be in- troduced by the board of education up- on the recommendation of the superin- tendent, but upon his failure to make such a recommendation within a reason- able time after demand, the board may make appointments, promotions and transfers, and adopt text-books and edu- cational apparatus by a two-thirds vote of all its members, (3.) He shall be consulted as to loca- tion and plans of school buildings and as to plans and specifications for educa- tional supplies. (4.) Text-books and apparatus once adopted shall not be changed within four years after their adoption, except upon vote of not less than two-thirds of all the members of the board of educa- tion. (5.) The superintendent of schools shall nominate for appointment by the board of education, assistant and dis- December 19 545 1906 trict superintendents and principals of schools, and shall have power, with the consent of the board, to remove them upon complaint and for cause. IX. THE BUSINESS MANAGER. The business manager shall have the general care and supervision of the property and the business matters of the department of education. He shall with the concurrence of the board of education appoint his subordi- nate officers and employes, among whom there shall be a trained architect and a trained engineer. In matters affecting the general poli- cy of his administration he shall be subject to the direction of the board. X. APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS, ETC. (1.) Appointments, promotions and transfers of teachers shall be made for merit only, and after satisfactory ser- vice for a probationary period of three years, appointments of teachers and principals shall become permanent, sub- ject to removal for cause upon written charges, but the board need not retain in service more principals or teachers than the needs of the schools require. (2.) The standing of teachers for appointment and promotion shall be en- trusted to a bord to be constituted by the board of education, of which the su- perintendent of schools shall be the head. XI. COMPULSORY EDUCATION. The maximum age of compulsory school attendance shall be increased from fourteen to sixteen. But the children between the ages of fourteen years and sixteen shall not be required to attend school for such time during said years as they may be in good faith engaged in regular employment not less than five hours daily for not less than five days in each week. XII. PENSIONS. The Board of Education may, and with the co-operation and consent of the City Council, establish a permanent pen- sion system for teachers, principals and other employes of the Board of Educa- tion. It may be maintained in part j from the public funds to be provided by { the city, and in part by voluntary, fixed and proportionate contributions, to be retained from the salaries of teachers and principals. The pension system, as now administered, shall continue until j the same is organized for administra- tion under and by virtue of the provi- sions hereof. XIII. REPORT AND EXAMINA- TION OF ACCOUNTS. The mayor shall, as often as yearly, and may as often as semi-annually ap- point certified public accountants, to ex- { amine and audit the accounts of the Board of Education, and the report thereof, together with any recommenda- tion of such accountants, as to change in the business methods of the board, or of any of its departments, officers, or employes, shall be made to the mayor and to the Board of Education, and be spread upon the records of the latter. The expenses of such audit shall be paid by the board. BY MR. LATHROP: Amend Section 1, of XYI, by adding the following words: Provided, However, that the city shall not have power to operate such public utility works by virtue of any- thing in this section contained. BY MR. SHEDD: Resolved, That in cases where a po- lice officer, in the actual discharge of his duty, is charged with an offense, such as murder, manslaughter, or other serious charge, or charges, that the Common Council shall appropriate a sufficient fund for attorney’s fees to the end that such officer shall be prop- erly represented in court, and the truth of said allegations brought out. December 19 546 1906 BY MR. VOPICKA: RESOLVED: That the City of Chi- cago be given power in condemnation proceedings to make the assessments for benefits payable in such number of annual installments as the City Coun- cil shall by ordinance determine, not to exceed twenty in number, and to issue bonds for the anticipation of such assessments payable out of the pro- ceeds of the collection thereof, and to sell such bonds at not less than par, for the creation of a special fund to be used in the payment of the awards for property taken or damaged through such condemnation proceedings. BY MR, VOPICKA: Resolved: That the City of Chicago shall have power to appropriate and set aside out of the moneys received through general taxation or from mis- cellaneous sources, as a special fund to be used only for the repair or re- pavement of such streets as have been paved by special assessment since July 1, 1901, and such streets as shall here- after be so paved. BY MR. VOPICKA: Resolved: That the City of Chicago shall have power to create a special fund to be used for the purpose of guaranteeing the prompt payment at maturity of all special assessment bonds of the City of Chicago issued since January 1, 1903. BY MR. VOPICKA: Resolved: That the City of Chicago shall have power to levy assessments for improvements according to the pres- ent Special Assessment law with the lollowing amendment: In cases where the amount of an assessment for widening or opening of a street or streets exceeds the sum of $500,000, then the assessment is to be divided in the following manner: 10 per cent, of the amount to be levied on the property facing the streets where the improvement is made and 90 per cent, of the assessment to be levied pro rata on all the real estate property in Chicago. Report of Committee on Rules, Pro- cedure and General Plan — B. A. Eck- hart, Chairman. CHICAGO CHARTER CONVENTION, Gentlemen: Your committee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan, to whom were referred the following res- olutions which were introduced for consideration at the meeting of Decem- ber 14th, 1906, XIII. PROPERTY. 2. The city may so acquire property outside of as well as within the city limits for any municipal purpose. Also an amendment offered by Mr. Shanahan: * * * that the city may acquire property by purchase outside as well as within the city limits for any mu- nicipal purpose, and not have the right to condemn outside property. Also an amendment offered by Mr. Brown : The city may acquire property out- side of the city, or purchase and con- demn property for municipal purposes within the city. Also an amendment offered by Mr. B. A. Eckhart: The city may acquire property out- side as well as within the city limits, either by purchase or condemnation, for park and boulevard purposes. would respectfully report that the com- mittee has considered the subject-mat- ter, and recommends the adoption of the following: The city may acquire by purchase December 19 547 1906 outside as well as within the city limits for any municipal purpose, and may acquire property outside of the city limits by purchase or condemnation for park, boulevard or forest preserve pur- poses. Respectfully submitted, B. A. ECKHART, Chairman. BY MR. PENDARVIS: Resolved, That the charter shall con- tain a provision preserving the integ- SPECIAL SECTION XVII. — Education, at page 56. o'clock p. m.) PARAGRAPH 3. — Suffrage, at page 52. the disposition of the subject of Edi rity of prohibition districts established by ordinance of the city, and providing that the City Council shall have no power to modify or abolish any such prohibition district until the proposi- tion to so modify or abolish any such district shall, upon a petition of not less than 20 per cent, of the legal voters then residing within any such district, be submitted to and be ap- proved by a majority of all the legal voters residing within such prohibition district. ORDERS (Thursday, December 20, at 7:30 (To be taken up immediately after ication.) CORRECTIONS. MR. VOPICKA: At page 473, sub- stitute the following for the remarks of Mr. Vopicka as printed: Mr. Chair- man: .In connection with this No. 5, I believe the motion made by Aider- man Bennett is correct. We have the opening of the streets of Chicago which is ordered for the benefit of all of the people of Chicago. An improve- ment of that kind often costs from five to fifteen million dollars. My opinion is, gentlemen, that if a street is to be opened or widened for the benefit of all the people of Chicago, that they all ought to pay toward it, and for that reason, I would like to see a clause put into the charter which would state that. If a public street should be widened or opened, a special assessment should be levied so that the property owners on the street where the improvement is to be made shall pay ten per cent, of the assessment, and the balance of ninety per cent, should, in my judg- ment, be assessed in all the real estate property in the City of Chicago. If a provision of this kind is not included in the charter, then you will find that large improvements of that kind hard- ly can be made in the City of Chicago in the future. Everybody objects to it — the property owners who are as- sessed — the courts can hardly adjust it properly, and the present assessment law is anything but just on that one point. The law prescribes that all of the property — every foot of it — facing on the street where the improvement is made has to pay the same assessment. Book how unjust this provision is! Sometimes in one location a lot costs $25,000 and lots on the same street in a different location are worth only $500, and still both of these lots have to pay the same assessment. For that reason, as well as other good reasons, pretty nearly everybody who is direct- ly interested in the opening of the December 19 548 1906 streets is opposed to the improvement. Large corporations, for example, rail- road companies, always protest against these assessments because they claim that they don’t derive any benefit from them. Now on the subject of widen- ing streets, I wish to cite the present case of widening of Halsted street. There are lots on that street worth $25,000, near Madison street, while lots are worth only $2,500 near West Six- teenth street. The assessment of 42 per cent., which is to be paid by the property owners on that street, will be equally divided among them, which means an assessment of from three to four thousand dollars on each of the lots. On the one hand, it will not hurt the property owner, but on the other hand it will practically bankrupt the owner of the cheap lot. I hope, gentle- men, that you will take into considera- tion the resolutions which I offered here tonight, and by this means, we will make such large improvements practi- cable. I believe that the present as- sessment law is too hard on the prop- erty owner, and for that reason I have offered another resolution which has been presented here tonight, which in substance states that the time for the payment of these large assessments should be extended from five to twenty years. Furthermore, I ask that the whole affair, including my resolutions, be referred to the Committee on Reve- nue, of which Alderman Bennett is the chairman. Also on page 480, substitute the fol- lowing for the remarks of Mr. Yopicka, as they are printed: Mr. Chairman, the motion of Mr. Smulski is very good and very nice. It looks very nice in theory, and it looks, at a first glance, that everybody must be in favor of it. But we must take into consideration other matters; we must take into considera- tion the question as to whether the city will be able to pay it. Furthermore, Mr. Smulski says that these laws will come into effect after the charter is adopted. Now, here are property own- ers who paid for having their streets paved this and last year, and who will have them paved next year, before the charter is adopted. If this law is to be passed, then let in include all the streets paved during the time of the “Special Assessment Law,” which came into operation about five or six years ago. Let us think this whole matter over tonight — including my res- olutions — and refer the entire matter to the Committee on Revenue, which shall report tomorrow, when the matter of special assessments will come up again. December 19 549 1906 RESOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO AMENDMENT OF STATE CONSTITUTION Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Illinois, the Senate concurring there: in That there shall be submitted to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection at the next election of members of the General Assem- bly, a proposition to amend the Constitution of this State as follows: Resolved, That Article IV of the Constitution of this State be amended by ading thereto a section to be numbered and known as Section 34, and reading as follows, to-wit: Section 34. The General Assembly shall have power, subject to the condi- tions and limitations hereinafter contained to pass any law (local, special or general) providing a scheme or charter of local municipal government for the territory now or hereafter embraced within the limits of the City of Chicago. The law or laws so passed may provide for consolidating (in whole or in part) in the municipal government of the City of Chicago, the powers now vested in the city, board of education, township, park and other local governments and authorities having jurisdiction confined to or within said territory, or any part thereof, and for the assumption by the City of Chicago of the debts and liabilities (in whole or in part) of the governments or corporate authorities whose functions within its territory shall be vested in said City of Chicago and may 1 authorize said city in the event of its becoming liable for the indebtedness of two or more of the existing municipal corporations lying wholly within said City of Chicago, to become indebted to an amount (including its existing indebtednessi and the indebtedness of all municipal corporations lying wholly within the limits of said city, and said city’s proportionate share of the indebtedness of said county and sanitary district which share shall be determined in such manner as the General Assembly shall prescribe) in its aggregate not exceeding five per centum of the full value of the taxable property within its limits as ascertained by the last assessment either for State or municipal purposes previous to the incurring of such indebtedness (but no new bonded indebtedness, other than for refunding purposes, shall be incurred until the proposition therefor shall be consented to by a majority of the legal voters of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special) ; and may provide for the assessment of property and the levy and collection of taxes within said city for corporate purposes in accordance with the principles of equality and uniformity prescribed by this Constitution; and may abolish all offices, the functions of which shall be oherwise provided for; and may provide for the annexation of territory to or disconnection of territory from said City of Chicago by the consent of a majority of the legal voters (voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special) of the said city and of a majority of the voters of such territory, voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special, and in case the General Assembly shall create municipal courts in the City of Chicago it may abolish the offices of Justices of the Peace, Police Magistrates and Constables in and for the territory within said city and may limit the jursidiction of Justices of the Peace in the territory of said County of Cook outside of said city to that territory, and in such case the jurisdiction and practice of said municipal courts shall be such as the General Assembly shall prescribe; and the December 19 550 1906 General Assembly may pass all laws which it may deem requisite to effectually provide a complete system of local municipal government in and for the City of Chicago. No law based upon this amendment to the Constitution, affecting the municipal government of the City of Chicago, shall take effect until such law shall be con- sented to by a majority of the legal voters of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special; and no local or special law based upon this amendment affecting specially any part of the City of Chicago shall take effect until consented to by a majority of the legal voters of such part of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special. Nothing in this section contained shall be construed to repeal, amend or affect Section Four (4) of Article XI of the Constitution of this State. Adopted by the House, April 22, 1903. Concurred in by the Senate, April 22, 1903. PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER THURSDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1906 dljtrago (Eljartrr (Enmirntton Convened, December 12, 1905 HEADQUARTERS 171 WASHINGTON STREET TELEPHONE MAIN 4877 Milton J. Foreman Chairman Alexander h. Revell, . Vice-Chairman M. L. McKinley Secretary Henry Barrett Chamberlin, Asst. Secy December 20 553 1906 PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Regular Meeting, Thursday, December 20, 1906 7:30 O’clock P. M., in the City Council Chamber OFFICIAL RECORD Published by authority of the Chicago Charter Convention. • THE CHAIRMAN: The Convention will be in order. The Secretary will call the roll. Present — Foreman, Chairman, and Baker, Beebe, Bennett, Brosseau, Brown, Carey, Church, Crilly, Ritter, Dever, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eidmann, Erickson, Gansbergen, Guer- in, Hill, Hunter, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, Lundberg, MacMil- lan, McCormick, McGoorty, McKinley, Merriam, O’Donnell, Owens, Paullin, Pendarvis, Post, Powers, Rainey, Ray- mer, Revell, Robins, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Sunny, Taylor, Vopicka, Werno, White, Wilkins, Zim- mer — 51. Absent — Badenoch, Beilfuss, Burke, Clettcnberg, Cole, Dixon, T. J., Eck- hart, J. W., Fisher, Fitzpatrick, Gra- ham, Haas, Harrison, Iloyne, Ochne, Patterson, Rinaker, Rosenthal, Seth- ness. Swift, Thompson, Walker, Wilson, Young — 23. THE CHAIRMAN: A quorum pres- ent. Are there any corrections or amendments to the minutes? The Chair desires to state that before these min- utes shall permanently be published an opportunity will be given to edit them; but in the meantime it is suggested that such amendments and suggestions and changes as the members desire to make be handed to the clerk in writing. Now, with such amendments as may be handed in, the minutes will stand approved as the minutes of the last meeting of the Convention. The first business before the Con- vention is a consideration of the mo- tion of Prof. Merriam, to adopt Sec- tion 7 of the Revenue Act, which the Secretary will read. MR. RAYMER: Is the Secretary go- ing to read it? T was going to make a motion in order to bring the matter before the house. THE CHAIRMAN: What is it? MR. RAYMER: That we do not con- cur in No. 7. THE CHAIRMAN: So that every- body may know what is before the | house, the Secretary will read the sec- December 20 554 1906 tion, and the Chair will then recog- nize Mr. Raymer. The Secretary then read No. 7, at page 538. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair de- sires to state that the pending motion is the motion of Prof. Merriam at the last meeting, in which he moved its adoption. Upon a roll call upon that motion it was found that no quorum was present, therefore that motion is still before the house in that form. Is there any discussion upon this? MR. MERRIAM: Mr. Chairman, I spoke once upon this subject, but I would like to ask for leave to speak again. MR. ROBINS: I move consent be given. THE CHAIRMAN: There is unani- mous consent. MR. MERRIAM: Mr. Chairman, some of the gentlemen who spoke at the last session seemed to be under a wrong impression. No. 7 merely pro- vides for the carrying into execution of one of the plain and fundamental provisions of the charter. The amend- ment you will find on page 549 of the proceedings; the language — the exact language of the charter amendment. Only four things are specifically asked for in that amendment. Those are: In the first place, consolidation; in the second place, a higher debt limit; and in the third place, city assessment and collection; and in the fourth place, a system of municipal courts. This was then one of the four fundamental prop- ositions which were drawn up, I believe, by the old Charter Convention and sub- mitted to the State Legislature of Illi- nois, backed up by a strong lobby of Chicago members. They asked for only four things at large, and one of those four was city assessment. It is not exactly fair to state, or to infer, in any way that this is not a clear and evident proposition within the scope of the charter legislation. This amendment was passed by the State Legislature as was asked by the City of Chicago, and was ratified by a majority, which was secured partly by means of the efforts and the money of Chicago people. This was a part of the charter dress that Chicago had demanded. Of course, if upon more mature consideration, after money has been spent all this time to obtain the charter, we now discover that we have something in there, one- fourth of which we do not want, of course, we can reject it; but I say this is rather an absurd position for the Convention to take, and for Chicago to take after having strenuously exer- cised itself in getting such an amend- ment, to then turn its back upon a fundamental principle contained in the amendment. This possibility of the city assessment is indicated some five lines above the other, where, after re- ferring to the debt limit, we find that the debt is not to exceed 5 per cent of the full value of the taxable property in the city limits as ascertained in the last assessment, either for state or mu- nicipal purposes. It indicates very clearly in regard to this — that is, in re- gard to another proposition that was in the minds of the people who demanded charter legislation, not only themselves, but in the consideration of the court, on the question of whether the amend- ment was constitutionally adopted. This was one of the particular points on which the court dealt at some length — in regard to the power of the city to assess personal property. I need not say that the power of the city to value its own property is fundamental in this revenue system. It is impossible to have a uniform and responsible reve- nue system if you take away from the city the power to value its own property. You may give it the power to tax, or you may give it the power to raise in- cidental revenue by licenses, and so on; but if that fundamental proposition as to giving the city the power to value December 20 555 1906 its own property be not incorporated, it will cripple the proposition. This is recognized in a great many of the large cities in this country which in the past and for years have had the power to value their own property. As for example, in New York, Boston, Phil- adelphia, St. Louis and San Francisco, and in practically all the large cities in this country that power is given. At present the assessing officers are not chosen by the city; they are elect- ed at different times. For instance, we chose the members of the Board of Review and the members of the Board of Assessors at the time of the presi- dential election. It is impossible to get that forward as a local issue, im- possible to choose members and munic- ipal officers on a municipal platform or municipal plan. The advantages of a city valuation I illustrated at the last session of this convention, and I may be pardoned, perhaps, if I refer briefly to it again. In the experience of New York City, when they first came to construct the subways in the city and the city had to raise money, it was discovered that the i city had to raise money by deliberately advancing the valuation within two years half a billion dollars, and corre- spondingly lower the assessment tax rate, so that while they raised no more money, their taxation were increased, the power of taxation was increased by raising the valuation in that way, so as to enable them to make public im- provements, permanent improvements for the development of New York. That illustrates the necessity of having in- dependent local power to regulate as- sessments. Mr. Shepard, in his speech that he made, in his address at the last meet- ing of the Convention, conjured up all sorts of imaginary difficulties. My good friend, Mr. Shepard, began con- juring these difficulties up last sum- mer, during the heated term, and he still continues to conjure them up, with the delusion that they will arise, al- though usually he is a very sane and sound gentleman, but he has conjured up these illusions that if you turn back to the record you will discover he has shown how under the system sixteen or eighteen different assessing bodies, every ward will have an assessing body, I think he said that there will be a separate system of valuation and collection for the sanitary district, and a separate system of valuation and col- lection for other things, and that we would have a dozen independent sys- tems, each one assessing. He reasoned this out, that each one of these towns and bodies will have an independent system, as Mr. Shepard looks at it. It seems very good as a work of imaginative generosity, but as a sys- tem of practical taxation, that would be the case. The proposition would be that the valuation of the property with- in the limits of the City of Chicago would be made by city assessors, if at any time ' in the future we saw fit to act upon this. So that it is to be care- fully observed that this does not pro- vide a standing city assessment. But whenever they see fit to do this they may act in one of two ways: They may either provide a system of taxa- tion by city assessors of property with- in the limits of the city, such valua- tion to be made the basis of value for all other taxing bodies, as, for in- stance, the county and the sanitary district. In this case there would be by no means a double set of assessors, but you have merely the assessment within the city carried on by city offi- cers responsible to the city population and the city electors, and controllable by them, instead of elected by outside bodies and not responsible to and con- trollable by the electors of the City of Chicago. This would not then bo du- plicate assessment, but would simply be making the valuation of assessment December 20 556 1906 within the City of Chicago the basis for other valuations outside. This can be done in two ways, either by agreement with the county to have the county take over the MR. SHEPARD: Will you yield to a question? THE CHAIRMAN: Will you yield to a question, Mr. Merriam? MR. MERRIAM : Certainly. MR. SHEPARD: Can you point to any law or authority by which the county board can agree to take any as- sessment or has other authority over assessment anywhere for county taxes or for any tax? MR, MERRIAM: The county has complete control over all taxes within Cook County for the purposes of valua- tion and assessment. MR. SHEPARD: I am sure you are not sincere, are you, Professor? MR. MERRIAM: I stated as a stat- utory proposition. The County Court, or county authorities MR. SHEPARD: The County Board is the legislative body of the county. MR. MERRIAM: The board of as- sessors and the board of review would be the country authority that would have the control. I understand your ques- tion to be whether or not the county has any authority in matters of taxa- tion. The board of assessors and board of review have complete control in re- gard to assessment and collection. MR. SHEPARD: Do you state that the board of assessors is the county? MR. MERRIAM: They are not the county and neither is the City Council the City of Chicago, but it is a part of it. AIR. SHEPARD: Can the board of assessors agree which assessment they shall take? MR. MERRIAM: Certainly not. MR. SHEPARD: Can you point out anywhere any authority by which the county can agree to any assessment for itself or in any way. There is no pres- ent pow T er to enter into any agreement on the part of the sanitary district or the county to accept any assessment for itself or for anyone else, is there? MR. MERRIAM: Perhaps you refer to some legal and binding agreement. MR. SHEPARD : It is legal and bind- ing if it has any force. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Merriam will continue. The Chair cannot permit the rules to be wrecked by joint debate. MR. MERRIAM: Mr. Shanahan re- ferred on the evening before to the ques- tion of an agreement. By agreement of course, I do not mean a legal, binding contract, which would be unnecessary, but if the county agreed to some time in the future, and the City of Chicago w r ere to take over under agreement the power to value, it would then become a work- ing and practical system. Or this might still be done even by virtue of the act of the City of Chicago alone. That is to say, the City of Chicago might decide to establish a system of valuation and collection and proceed to put that in force and to make that a basis for the valuation of Cook County and the Sani- tary District, and other outside bodies concerned in any property within the limits of the City of Chicago. Upon this latter proposition I am ready to concede that there is some doubt as to whether that could be done by the City of Chicago alone. The Law Committee gave us sort of an oracular reply. In response to this proposition the Law Committee said that that was at least doubtful. I have no doubt it is. I think the 13th, 14th and 15th amend- ments to the Constitution of the United States are at least doubtful. When they were promulgated the Secretary of State refused to put them out for a long time. The constitution of our state is in some respects doubtful. In the opinion of eminent counsel, it December 20 557 1906 has been stated that this is a perfectly legal and valid proposition. MR. SUNNY: Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, I was more or less intimately connected with the steps and with the furthering of the movement of this con- stitutional amendment, so that I know more or less about its history. You will recall that when it was originally drawn — and it was drawn by a committee of some nine or ten gentlemen, some six or seven of whom were our ablest Chi- cago lawyers. It included a consolida- tion of the Sanitary District, the County of Cook, the City of Chicago, the parks, towns and library boards and Board of Education. In connection with so large a consolidation, in embracing all of the municipalities operating in the City of Chicago, it is entirely proper, if not neces- sary, to put these lines in the middle of the Constitution to which Prof. Mer- riam referred yesterday afternoon, as follows : ‘ 1 And may provide for the assessment of property and the levy and collection of taxes within said city for corporate purposes, in accordance with the principles of equality and uniformity prescribed by this Constitution. ’ ’ I say that it is proper to put that con- dition in the amendment, inasmuch as general consolidation was calculated, and it is — we had not gone far in the move- ment to get this constitutional amend- ment when we found it would be im- practical to consolidate the Sanitary Dis- trict. The territory covered by the Sani- tary District was very much larger than the city and a consolidation with the city would involve cutting the district in two and extending the city 25 or 30 miles southwest. So we ran a pen through the lines that had reference to the Sani- tary District. Some months after that t down in Springfield, we had held out as long as we could for consolidation between the county and the city and the other municipalities, and we found that we could not agree unless we struck out all reference to Cook County. And those words w’ere stricken out in a great hurry and without any opportunity whatever to the committee which drafted the amend- ment to go over it again and see in what respects it ought to be changed be- cause of the elimination of reference to the Sanitary District and Cook county. I was present at all discussions which were had when that was being drawn, and it is my judgment that if it had been drawn only with reference to a con- solidation, drawn on the basis of leaving out the Sanitary District of Cook County originally, this line of amendment I have just read would not have been in there. For that reason I am going to vote against the Section 7. MR. McCORMICK : I am opposed to the motion of Professor Merriam, for sev- eral reasons. At the time you were all working for the adoption of a new charter, and I was a member of the com- mittee or commission that was supposed to be doing the active work, we all had in mind several distinct things we wanted to accomplish. Of course for a long time we wanted to get rid of justice courts and introduce municipal courts ; people on the I^orth and West Sides were par- ticularly anxious to consolidate the parks so that the taxes from the down town dis- trict would not merely go to the South Park Board. Everybody was willing to see a change in the revenue law, and the taxation of Chicago, as to quantity. In all the discussion, in all the arguments for the charter for Chicago, I never heard a word said for a new Board of Assess- ors or a new Board of Review for the City of Chicago alone. The matter was never presented so far as I know in any public speech or any pamphlet, or in any newspaper editorial. If it is for this Charter Convention to first bring the matter up to have an adoption such as that. But one point Professor Merriam made on the subject of a city taxing power December 20 558 1906 arouses my opposition as an official. He speaks of the City of New York raising its assessed valuation and increasing its tax rate in order to increase its revenue, which, in the first place, is a dishonest thing to do. The valuation is the valua- tion or else it is not. It is a dishonest thing for any Board of Assessors to change the valuation according to the exigencies of a particular situation. Sup- posing Chicago wanted to increase the bond issue and it did not care to increase its revenue, and took the same steps as were taken in New York. Might that not entirely confuse the Sanitary Dis- trict organization, and their dockets? We are going down to the legislature for a great many new things. A great many new things we are after that we need, and a great many things the country members may not think we need. Why should we add one more burden upon the people who are going to put the new charter through the legislature? Why should we do that when there is no pub- lic demand for it, and no particular need for it? I am not aw T are that the present system of assessment is so vigorously criticised as to need immediate change. I have never heard of such a thing exist- ing from one end of the city to the other. I have heard very little about the Board of Assessors or the Board of Review. And if some people do think the assess- ments are not correct in these tribunals, is not that the fault of the personnel rather than of the system; and is it not just as likely that city-elected assessors would do the same thing, or make those mistakes? I think it is unwise at this time to rearrange Cook county, at the same time that we are rearranging Chi- cago. I think it unwise to take a step that few of us have studied, and none of us really have demanded; and, person- ally, and from a public point of view I am opposed to taking a step which will allow the city officials to have a particu- lar jurisdiction, and a separate jurisdic- tion from the County of Cook, when the two can be worked together for the same things, and where in the county part of it they will have no power whatsoever in the selection of the city officers. MR, PAULLIN: Mr. President, I would like to add a word to what Mr. Sunny has said here. It seems to me that Mr. Sunny and others started out with the idea that they could have a con- solidated and a divided Cook County, and that there was very great difference of opinion. Mr. Sunny and his committee were willing to divide this county if needs be, in order to get a greater Chi- cago. They found a strong sentiment in the country towns against that. We do not want two or three court houses in- stead of one ; we do not want two or three poor houses instead of one. I was in the same meeting with Mr. Sunny when that w r as discussed, I be- lieve, at 76 Fifth avenue, in which they had eminent counsel there to back up their ideas, and we went to the legisla- ture upon that point, and we found con- siderable opposition from the country towns against the proposition entailing any division of Cook County. I was in that legislature on one side, and Mr. Sunny was in the legislature on the other opposed to the division of Cook County. This Convention will not be able to sug- gest any law to the legislature that will in any sense of the word disturb Cook County or the taxing bodies of Cook County. It is useless to lose time on that point. It is a settled question, and I think Mr. Sunny will agree with me. The State Senate has said that, and the committee and the Senate, and the House concurred therein. So far as the Sani- tary District is concerned, I want to add a few words. I have been a member of that body but a short time, but I know the history of the legislation which brought about the creation of that body. Many years before it was established I there were men in this city who wondered December 20 559 1906 how it could be done, and a gentleman from Evanston, Mr. Harvey B. Hurd, was the man who conceived the law which made the Sanitary District a fact, and that will be fought in the Legislature, and no change will ever be made which will change the taxing body of the Sanitary District of Chicago. It is impossible from a legal point of view, because this district is not going to be a smaller one than it is; it will take in more towns, perhaps, than it has now, and I believe this Convention will lose time in trying to change, or to suggest changes in the assessment taxation arrangements as they now exist in Cook County by a Board of Assessment, or otherwise. * I think I know the temper of the Legislature upon that point. MR. LINEHAN: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the arguments, both the other afternoon and this evening, and it seems to me that no serious objection has been raised so far outside of the fact that it is now, and it has been in the past — and I want it to remain that way — the fact that Cook County has got a pretty perfect piece of ma- chinery, and it has got machinery so perfect that it cannot and should not be changed. I feel confident it cannot be changed. But it is a matter of principle just the same; it is a matter of home rule, and I am glad it has come before this Con- vention. It means, shall 92 per cent, of the voting population do the assessing, or shall S per cent, of it do the assess- ing? Ninety-two per cent, of the voting population is contained in the City of Chicago, and a proposition is made here that a Board of Assessors shall be ap- pointed, or something along that line, for the purpose of giving that 92 per cent, the right to establish the valua- tion as regards the City of Chicago, solely and entirely a home rule proposi- tion. But so far the only objection had to it is, that it now is, and has been and ever will be in the hands of the County of Cook. And then we have a picture which is pathetic, perhaps, of a citizen running all around this city, looking for a place to find his valua- tion, to pay his taxes, and after get- ting into the new County Building he has to wend his way over to the West Side, to Union Park, to the new City Hall, before he can pay the rest of it. That is about the whole sum and substance of the argument. The fact remains staring you in the face just the same, that 92 per cent, are contained in the City of Chicago; and men who come here solely and wholly with the idea of home rule for the City of Chi- cago hesitate, because they do not know, they say that whatever they decide, we will still let the 8 per cent, do the valuation for this city. MR. CHURCH: May I ask the gen- tleman a question? MR. LINEHAN: Mr. Merriam will answer the questions. (Laughter.) MR, CHURCH: I don’t think Mr. Merriam would like to have me ask him this question: I want to ask you if 92 per cent, of the voters, if 92 per cent, of the people of this city do not participate in selecting our pres- ent assessing bodies? MR. LINEHAN: Most certainly; why shouldn’t they? MR. CHURCH : You spoke as though they did not. MR. LINEHAN: If we had home rule, they would not have to chase to the other end of the town for it. MR. CHURCH: You say that 8 per cent, do the assessing; I would like to have you explain that. MR. LINEHAN: There is one point — pardon ine for not answering your question. I don ’t like to answer questions. Well, I have forgotten my point now; I was going to say some- thing, but F have forgotten the point.* December 20 560 1906 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you through, Mr. Linehan? MR. LINEHAN : I am through, for I have forgotten; yes, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: Any further dis- cussion on this question ? MR, PENDARYIS: If I agreed with Prof. Merriam that this proposition is a practical and a desirable one from the standpoint of the municipality I should have to oppose his proposition for the reason I believe that it was never con- templated by the amendment to the Constitution, and that there is no power conferred by the Constitution which con- templates the adoption of any such pro- position. Now, if you will read the amendment to the Constitution you will find it provides, first, that the general assembly shall have the power to pass any law relative to the city government of the City of Chicago. ' Then it says that the law or laws so passed first, it may provide for consolidating, enum- erating the things that may be done un- der consolidation; then the law or laws so passed by the general assembly may provide for the assessment of property and levying and collection of taxes with- in such city for corporate purposes. This is the provision upon wdiieh Prof. Mer- riam relies for the exercise of a power proposed in this proposition. Reading further from the amendment to the Constitution, it says, 1 1 The law or laws so passed by the general as- sembly may provide for the annexing or disconnection of territory, ’ ’ and so forth. Now, you will notice that the language of the amendment to the Con- stitution is that the law or laws so passed by the general assembly may do all these things; and if you take the view of Prof. Merriam you will have to read into the section relating to the provision for the assessment and collec- tion of taxes these words, “and the law or laws so passed may confer upon the City of Chicago the power to provide for the assessment and levy of taxes. ’ ’ There is no power contained in this amendment which, delegated to the gen- eral assembly of the State of Illinois, to authorize the City of Chicago or the City Council to exercise any jurisdic- tion upon the question of the assessment and levying of taxes. If that power is to be exercised at all it is to be exer- cised by the genearl assembly, and we have in the action already taken by this Convention in the adoption of the resolu- tion proposed by Mr. Shepard, acted in accordance with the terms of that pro- vision of the constitutional amendment. You will not find in this constitutional amendment any authority conferred upon the general assembly to delegate its powers in that particular to the City of Chicago. You would not stand here and argue that under this consti- tutional amendment the Legislature of the State of Illinois can say to the City Council that it can provide the means under which territory may be annexed or disconnected from the City of Chi- cago. And I want to remind this Con- vention that we have not pending before us now any proposition upon that par- ticular part of this constitutional amend- ment regarding the annexation of terri- tory to, or disconnection of territory from, this city, and that is something that we should provide for in this charter. If we do not, we will have no power to do it, because that power must come from the Legislature of the State of Illinois, and it can delegate that power to the City of Chicago. Now, if we are here to provide any system of assessment and collection of taxes for the City of Chicago, it will have to be through an act passed by the Legislature and not through an at- tempt to delegate that power to the City of Chicago. MR. MERRIAM: Will Mr. Pendar- vis permit a question? MR. PENDARYIS : Certainly. December 20 561 I 1906 ME. MEEEIAM: How would we be any worse off in this respect than in any other respect? THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair can- not permit a member to infringe upon the rules of the Convention. There is a special order coming up, and the Chair would suggest that discussion on this matter proceed as speedily as possible, so that the special order may be taken up and disposed of. MR. PENDARVIS: Well, Mr. Chair- man, I have said substantially all I care to say. In my experience at Springfield I have been frequently called upon to pass upon questions of doubtful valid- ity, and I certainly, taking the view I do of the provisions of this constitutional amendment, would not support a pro- position that contemplates what is con- templated by this provision. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the ques- tion of the adoption of Prof. Merriam’s motion to adopt Section 7 to the Rev- enue Act, the Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Carey, Ritter, Dever, Guerin, Linehan, McGoorty, Merriam, O’Don- nell, Owens, Post, Robins, Snow, Tay- lor, Vopicka, Werno, White, Zimmer — 17. Nays — Baker, Beebe, Bennett, Bros- seau, Brown, Church, Crilly, Dixon, G. W.; Eckhart, B. A.; Eidmann, Erickson, Ganshergen, Hill, Hunter, Jones, Kit- tleman, Lathrop, Lundberg, MacMillan, McCormick, Paullin, Pendarvis, Powers, Raymer, Revell, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Sunny, Wilkins — 30. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the mo- tion to adopt, yeas 17, nays 30, and the motion is lost. The special order is the subject of Edycation, Section 18, and the Chair will recognize Dr. Taylor, the chairman of the committee. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Convention: In ris- ing to move that the resolutions intro- | duced by me and printed on page 543 be adopted as the third alternative to Section 18, on page 56, I might facili- tate discussion by making some pre- fatory explanations. The resolutions introduced by me on page 543- THE CHAIRMAN : Pardon me, Mr. Taylor, for interrupting you for just a moment; there is a communication here in relation to the. subject that the Chair should like to have read before you continue your remarks. MR. TAYLOR: Very well. THE SECRETARY: Honorable Milton J. Foreman, Chair- man Chicago Charter Convention, Council Chamber, Chicago. Dear Sir: — The Chicago Federation of Labor at its meeting December 16, 1906, adopted the following resolution: “ Resolved, That the Chicago Feder- ation of Labor and all affiliated organi- zations resist by every honorable means any attempt of any and all interests and influences to take away the con- trol of the Chicago school system from the people of Chicago. “That we stand opposed to any measure either in charter provision or separate legislative action that would place the educational system of Chi- cago in the hands and under the con- trol of one man, and be it further “Resolved, That the Federation reit- erates its position on the question of school legislation and demand that the Charter Convention and the legislature take steps to carry out the will of the people on the “Little Ballot” and pro- vide for a Board of Education elected by the people, this board to have full control of the Chicago public schools, as provided now by law, and that said board be paid adequate salary. Respectfully submitted, CHICAGO FEDERATION OF LABOR, By E. N. Nockcls, Secretary. T HE CHAIRMAN: The communi- cation will be printed in the record and December 20 562 1906 placed on file. Dr. Taylor will now proceed. MR. TAYLOR: The resolutions which I moved as a third alternative to Section 18 MR, ROBINS: Will Dr. Taylor be good enough to take some position where all the members may hear him when he speaks? If he would, I think it would be of great help to us. MR. TAYLOR: I moved as a third alternative to Section 18, on page 56, a resolution, on page 543 MR. ROBINS: Are they the same as the resolutions on page 441? MR. TAYLOR: Yes, they are sim- ply carried forward from one part of the proceedings to another, so as to have it all together. Now, let me say, gentlemen, and Mr. Chairman, that the Committee on Edu- cation appointed by this Charter Con- vention was an exceptionally represen- tative body. No less than six men who either have had or are now having experience on the Board of Education, were on that committee, and one rep- resentative of the Federation of Labor, from whom we have just heard. In the discussions and final report of that committee there was the utmost free- dom and most absolute independence. The Federation of Teachers, the Prin- cipals’ Association, and the Woman Suffragists, the representatives of va- rious departments of the public schools, and any and everybody that wished to have a hearing there, had any sug- gestion whatever, were heard respect- fully and at length; and the Secretary will bear me out that the proceedings of this committee are perhaps the most voluminous of any in the Convention. Now, there developed two ideas of j the scope and function of this chapter j on public education in the charter of I Chicago. One was that it should grant, I in briefest terms — one of the members said in a dozen lines — large powers, ! cither to the City ’Council or to the Board of Education, however it might be appointed. The other was that specifications sufficient to assure admin- istration efficiency should be included. Now, this idea of the grant of gen- eral pqwer, either to the Board of Edu- cation or to the City Council, is incor- porated in this second alternative on page 56, which was presented not by the Committee on Public Education, but comes to the Convention through the Committee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan. It calls for the appoint- ment of a superintendent of instruction and a superintendent — a business man- ager, by the mayor, with concurrence of the council, City Council. Of course, that makes a council governed school system; but there were others who thought ‘that that general power should be granted to the Board of Education, either elected by the people or ap- pointed by the mayor with the concur- rence of the City Council. Those who feel that the specifications of provisions for administrative effi- ciency has a right to be included in the charter, have reported at full length in this pamphlet on your desks, the par- allel column. In the left hand column, a report of the Committee on Public Education, just as it came from the committee, with the exception of the correction of a few typographical er- rors that crept into the first printing of this report; and at still greater de- tail, I ventured to include in the right hand parallel column the specifications that met the approval of some other members of the committee, and other additions which are in italics that were suggested by eminent legal counsel as absolutely necessary to carry certain provisions of the report of the commit- tee surely into effect. This document, let me say — this parallel column — is not the production of the committee or au- thorized by it, and I should not have signed my name as chairman. I made that error and wish to apologize for it. December 20 563 1906 This is on my own responsibility en- tirely, to facilitate and, I hope, to shorten discussion, and to leave the points more clearly and definitely on your minds. Now, on this page 543, I have made a still further effort on my own in- dividual initiative and responsibility, as a member from the floor, and in no wise a committee member, to reduce perhaps more manageably the nine col- umns of more or less detailed specifica- tion in the report as it came from the hands of the committee to about half that number, namely, to about five col- umns, in which only the essential feat- ures of the report of the committee are presented, and reduced to their lowest form. I may say that I had the as- sistance in the drafting of this re- duced form of a gentleman whose ex- pert hand has framed many of the al- ternatives that are presented by the Committee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan. Now, it may assist the Convention to have me emphasize a few of the main features of this report wherein it differs from the present school law, which, in the main, is a good law, and reference to which is made where it seems to answer the purpose in this re- duced report printed today. In the first place, of course, all are agreed that education should be a de- partment of the city government as the Convention has already decided it should be. The reduction of the mem- bership of the board from 21 to 15 is the first feature to confront us. It was admitted on all hands that 21 was rather a large number and unwieldy. There were those, I may say, who very much preferred a still smaller board of nine, or of twelve, but the majority carried the point for fifteen. Now, in regard to an appointive or an elective board the committee divided, but, I think, the committee did not divide so sharply as this alternative would lead you to think. While the majority favored the appointive board, the com- mittee were unanimous in yielding to the wish of the minority that an alter- native be presented for an elective board; and the minority are thereby saved from bringing in a minority re- port. Still the majority voted in favor of the appointive board very decidedly. Now, let me say that in the elective board — in the provision for an elective board a large section in the report of the committee was devoted to repro- ducing the main features of the Ore- gon law, which those who are conver- sant with election laws say absolutely prevents partisan or political manipula- tion more than any other election law on the statute books in any state in the Union. It is a very carefully and a definitely drawn law. But in this report, the reduced report, we have not reproduced that Oregon law, but simply stated the main features of it,, namely, that the election should be a special election; that there should be no indication of partisanship in it, and that it should be safeguarded from po- litical interference in accordance with what we supposed would be the wish of the entire Convention. Let me add the interesting fact that this Oregon law was presented by the Principals’ Asso- ciation, whose delegation was headed by the late Albert G. Lane. In their appearance before the committee they strongly preferred the elective board. Now, perhaps the main feature of the committee’s report, which will proba- bly have more criticism than any other, and a criticism in advance of this ex- | planation has already been made by the j communication that has just been read from the Federation of Labor — MR. REVELL: Mr. Chairman, will Mr. Taylor allow me to ask a question at this time? THE- CHAIRMAN: Certainly. J MR. REVELL: Did you make a cor- December 20 564 1906 rect statement in saying that the Prin- cipals’ Association — THE CHAIRMAN: A little louder, Mr. Revell. MR. REVELL: Is your statement correct in saying that the Principals’ Association recommended the elective board! MR. TAYLOR: Yes, sir, in a fully drawn draft of a proposed chapter on public education for the new charter, presented by Mr. Albert G. Lane, the original copy of which is in my pos- session. The administrative efficiency sought to be secured by the locating of execu- tive responsibility in the hands of two agents of the board — the Board of Edu- cation, however, is left in full and final control — THE CHAIRMAN: Is there unani- mous consent to Dr. Taylor’s proceed- ing? (Cries of “agreed.’) MR. TAYLOR: I have but a little more to say. TriE CHAIRMAN: Proceed. MR. TAYLOR: Full and final con- trol is left in the hands of the Board of Education provided for in this re- port, but an effort has been made to deferentiate between the legislative and broadly administrative function of the Board of Education, and the execu- tive responsibility for carrying out its orders. And so the suggestion of the Charter Convention that the superinten- dent of schools have placed in his hand the executive duties of the board with regard to the management and control of educational affairs; that power of initiative be given him; and that he 'have a certain tenure of office which will enable him to have sufficient time fairly to test his policy. On the other hand, we felt that a business involving an investment of $60,000,000 in school property, a business handling between $11,000,000 and $12,000,000 annually, a business of great complexity, exceeding that of almost any, or most of the pri- vate corporations in this city, should have a business manager such as any great financial interest would demand to be at the head of its executive forces. And so, instead of having four or five agents with more or less co- ordinate and possibly conflicting au- thority, one business manager is provi- ded for, under whom the architect, the engineers, the auditors, and all the other executive officers are placed. Now, those two officers are left in com- plete control of the Board of Educa- tion. But, gentlemen, in order to se- cure a man of high ideal, and initiative, a man of educational experience and breadth of view, a man of highest busi- ness qualification, two things have to be assured him. Such men if they take such positions in the • public service want the power of initiative, as I have said, and sufficient tenure of office to test their policies. I submit that men of caliber cannot be secured to take such offices whose tenure of office is de- pendent upon a majority vote — a change of one vote in a board of 25 or 15, at any meeting of the board. I submit that it is no injustice, and it is not an undemocratic thing to do in regard to an agent in whose hands such tremendous possibilities are placed, to safeguard him from captious criticism and sudden and instant dismissal, and the overturning of all of his plans, by simply providing that he can be dis- missed by two-thirds vote of the board, and that initiative can be taken out of his hands only by a two-thirds vote by the board when he by this initiative has shown his power. I maintain this is simply business common sense, and it is not my contention that he can man- age these school affairs in any other way if he had subordinates under him. I call attention, however, to the fact that the report of the committee did not make it necessary for a two-thirds vote for the board to take the initia- December 20 565 1906 tive out of the hands of a superinten- dent or business manager and go into the matter of suggesting text books or nominating principles themselves; but the suggestion of a two-thirds vote is made on my own responsibility, and I will defend it before the Convention further, if I have any opportunity so to do. Another feature of the report which really demands your ‘attention is the extension of the age of compulsory edu- cation, from fourteen to sixteen. But excepting those boys or girls between those ages who can show that they are at work five hours a day for five days a week, and a large section of the committee ’s report had to be given to that, and in the parallel column is a still larger section, because the law- yers insist that the compulsory educa- tion law would virtually have to be re- enacted over again in order to make it applicable to the City of Chicago. I can give a very good reason person- ally for the extension of this compul- sory school law. I have lived for near- ly fourteen years in one of the most densely cosmopolitan tenement house districts in the City of Chicago, and I wish to say, without much fear of contradiction, that little boys and girls who lose hold on the ideas and princi- ples of life do so between those ages, because they have neither the disci- pline of the school nor of the shop. I will cite the officers of the Juvenile Court not only, but I think I could get the testimony of pretty near all the officers of the West Chicago Avenue po- lice station to verify me in this state- ment, and if some control were had over the boys after fourteen and before sixteen that the gangs of the young hoodlums would be largely broken up, and the boy would not have the oppor- tunity to start on the way of a crimi- nal career, because he would either have to be in the school or in the shop, and he could not be on the street. On the other hand, remember, that the compulsory education — pardon me, the anti-child labor law — prohibits chil- dren from being worked too many hours constantly. It is difficult for them to find employment between fourteen and sixteen, while the compulsory educa- tion law loses its grip over them just at the danger period of life. Better than to have a thousand policemen added to the force in Chicago— not so much the restraining, but the preoccupying effect of this beneficent law. There is a very ample safeguard in this report for the revenue side of the management of the board. Remember, gentlemen, the magnitude of its busi- ness, the complexity of its supply de- partment, the vastness of its building operations, the need of great caution and care in order to conserve the splen- did generosity of the American people in supporting what is the greatest American thing in America — the Amer- ican public school. I wish to take up, in conclusion, one other suggestion. The very well inten- tioned and strong presentation which has just been read us from the Chicago Federation of Labor is right in theory, but, I submit, it does not apply to this report. Can you manage in any other way than by having efficient business agents, fully under the control of the board appointed by the mayor or elec- ted by the people, a business of this complexity and vastness. I stand, as all who know me will admit, for as ab- solute a democracy as can be made effi- cient, but I submit, gentlemen, that nothing can be worse for democracy than inefficiency; and I say, that it is in the interests of the people’s control* of their schools that they be assured the very highest and best executive ability that can be secured in the man- agement of their educational facilities on the one hand, and their business and material equipment on the other hand. I fail to see where this point of democ- December 20 566 1906 racy is to be seriously urged here. The people can elect whom they please, or they can elect a mayor who can ap- point whom he pleases. As for having the schools managed by one person, no- body contemplates that, except as that person is freely chosen and freely main- tained as the agent of the people. I should be very happy, in the course of the consideration of this third alter- native, which I think should have pre- cedence in our discussion and vote with the exception, perhaps, of the section referring to the way of constituting the board, either by election or by appoint- ment, which could well follow this third alternative — I shall be very glad to answer any questions. Ane one other point I wish to make, that the provision for an educational committee I shall move immediately after the educational section is pro- vided for. MR, SHANAHAN: I wish to ask Dr. Taylor a question. THE CHAIRMAN: Will you yield to a question, Dr. Taylor? MR. SHANAHAN: Doctor, I would like to ask you what the advantages are, if any, of a large board of educa- tion? And what the disadvantages, if any, of a small board of education? And what are the advantages, if any, of an elective board of education over an appointive board of education? MR. TAYLOR: Well, I suppose the question as read answers in the minds of anj’- who have given it at all any consideration, but, on general princi- ples, the cities of this country have found that a smaller body is more ef- fective than a larger one. And you Tvill find them ranging from seven, or even five, as in Boston, to twelve, and fifteen, perhaps, is none too large for the City of Chicago; and yet, I be- lieve personally that twelve would be even better. MR. ROBINS: What is the number of the City of New York? MR. TAYLOR: Forty-six in the City of New York. Let me say that the New York charter and the St. Louis charter are very much more de- tailed than ours. And most of the char- ters, even Grand Rapids, are much more detailed than ours. The second question, I failed to an- swer. With regard to an appointive and elective board, it is simply surmise that, in the long run, perhaps the varie- ty of talent and expertness here and there in some — for instance, one mem- ber who is expert in building, another on educational site could be secured by appointment that the talent of the board might be made more symmetrical, and that you have men of more kinds to do this complex business. I think that is the only reason why an ap- pointive board is preferred; and possi- bly to keep it out of the ordinary po- litical campaign. On the other hand, the interest of the people in their schools and the freedom of choice of the best people they can think of from all over this city, if prop- erly safeguarded by the election laws, and by special election is preferred by a large number of people. I don’t think the committee, as far as I could speak for them, would put up much of a fight on that difference. I certainly would not, but, on the whole, the majority, and some of them very strongly preferred an appointive board. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to discuss this matter more than to ask a question, and I desire to explain why I ask this question. This report has taken a very peculiar course. Some thirteen gentlemen appointed by this board struggled with the proposi- tion four or five months and evolved a certain report that was eventually presented to this Convention and by it referred to the Steering Committee. After we were presented by the Chair- man, and I trust the Chairman will December 20 567 1906 not for a moment think that I have any word of criticism, presented us with a parallel column for it, in which there were certain changes, not essential. Now, after we had spent some time in considering those two reports, we find ourselves faced, at a very late date in the Convention, by an entirely new report presented by the chairman of the committee as an individual. I was not present when this resolution just discussed was presented to the Conven- tion, and I must confess it has quite slipped my attention, and only since I sat down at the desk this evening have I had an opportunity to consider it. j My question is simply this, and the Doc- tor can answer it in a word: Does this condensed report contain essentially all the principles embodied in the former report? And is there . any essential principle omitted — is it essentially the original report, Dr. Taylor, condensed? Or if there are fundamental changes, will you indicate them to some of us who have not had time to make a com- parison? MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to answer that question, and I will preface my answer with the rea- son why this third alternative is pre- sented. It became very apparent that the Convention, in course of discussions on other topics, did not care to go into detail. The gentleman who has asked me this question is one of those men who, on this Committee on Public Edu- cation, insisted upon it that the details should be eliminated. It has been in entire deference to that sentiment in the Convention, and in the hope of fa- cilitating the discussion, and not com- plicating it by unnecessary detail, that this reduced draft has been made. And it is perfectly proper for me to say that Mr. Freund, who very carefully tried to reduce it to its lowest point, leaving out I all unnecessary detail and taking sim- ply the report of the Convention in so doing MR. WHITE: The essential princi- ple is there. MR. JONES: I think the general dis- cussion which we have had properly leads up to some action by the Con- vention. It would seem to me that the first thing which the Convention should do would be to discuss the second alter- native to Section 18, printed at page 56, and in order that proceedings may be orderly, I wish to move that the second alternative to 18 be laid upon the table. After the motion is put I should like to speak to that motion. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the second alternative. The Secretary then read second alter- native to 18, printed at page 56. MR. JONES: I was a member of the Educational Committee and was one of the minority which objected to the presentation of the report to this Con- vention in the elaborate and extended and detailed form in which it was pre- sented. It seemed to me that for a charter we should not go into the mat- ter in such detail, particularly defining the specific powers of the board, and the powers of the different members, and the different offices, and at the conclu- sion of one of the sections I moved that this whole matter be re-referred to the Committee on Rules, with a request that they report to this Convention a series of resolutions so that the matter might be considered by this Convention with some intelligence and understanding; and I was overruled upon that, and I understand now that what Professor Taylor presents, what he calls a third alternative, which I would not consider an alternative, is practically a series of- resolutions which presents the main points covered by the more elaborate re- port of the committee. That being the case it would seem these suggestive reso- lutions are not an alternative, but are the main body of the subject of edu- cation which is to be discussed ; and we December 20 568 1906 have therefore two alternatives, the first relating to an elective School Board, and the second alternative, concerning which I have made a motion, which provides for the abolishment of the School Board and the placing of the control of the school in the hands of the City Council and under a superintendent or business manager. Now, personally, I am opposed to the second alternative, and believe that it should be laid upon the table, because I think that the School Board should be distinct from the City Council. We have an admirable City Council in the City of Chicago, and I think that the spirit of the Convention in giving to that City Council the great powers which have been voted here shows that the people in Chicago have great confidence in their City Council. But I do not be- lieve that the public schools should be placed under the control of the City Council. I believe that there should be an educational council which should have the same powers over the schools that the City Council has over the gen- eral activities of the city, and 1 believe that the School Board should be selected in such a way as to secure as nearly as possible a non-partisan independent board. Of course that will come up un- der subsequent resolutions which are to be discussed; but this alternative No. 2, if carried, would do away entirely with the School Board and would place the control of the education of the city under a city departmental head, and would place the control of school build- ings and the business part of the schools under another such head, known as a business manager; that I believe would be a mistake; it would be a great mis- take to abolish the School Board, and I think we should retain the School Board, and we should by proper pro- vision insure that the School Board be independent of the City Council, and so far as possible be independent of politics. I hope, therefore, that in the consideration of this matter this second alternative will be laid upon the table, and that we may at once proceed to the discussion of the question as to whether the School Board shall be elective or appointive. THE CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and seconded that the second al- ternative to 18 be laid upon the table. Are you ready for the question? ( Cries of 1 1 question. ’ ’ ) THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor signify by saying aye; those op- posed, no. The motion is carried, and it will be laid upon the table. MR. ROBINS: Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of No. 1-a of first alterna- tive to 18. THE CHAIRMAN: There is a mo- tion before the- house. Will Dr. Taylor withdraw his motion? MR. TAYLOR: On the understand- ing that my motion will be taken up next ; on the understanding that it is to be considered next after this, that I will have the floor to present that mo- tion again. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. And your motion, Mr. Robins, is what? MR. ROBINS: The adoption of No. 1-a to first alternative to 18, which I wish the Clerk to read. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read it. THE SECRETARY: Page 56, lower left-hand column, first alternative to 18, 1-a: “The public school system of the City of Chicago shall be managed by an elective board of education composed of fifteen members. ’ ’ MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I should like to move that this question be di- vided. There is a question here as to whether the board shall be elective or appointive, and there is also a ques- tion as to the number of members. I would judge if it is an elective School Board we might decide that one num- December 20 569 1906 ber would be desirable, and if it were appointive we might wish a different number; I therefore move that this ques- tion be divided, and we first decide whether it shall be elective or appoint- ive. MR. ROBINS: I accept that motion. THE CHAIRMAN: If there are no objections the question will be divided; the question is upon Mr. Robins ’ mo- tion that the public school system of the City of Chicago shall be managed by an elective board. MR. ROBINS: In calling attention to this section the chief consideration is the desire that the public school system of Chicago should be as much as may be in any other institution taken out of partisan politics and out of the con- siderations of party politics. If this provision meets the approval of the ma- jority of this Convention I shall hope that it shall be so safeguarded that the possibility, as nearly as may be, of mak- ing this particular board an adjunct of any political party will have been re- moved. I believe that the appointment of boards of education by partisan mayors is a mistake; I believe that in the experience of all the cities such appoint- ments have been more or less unsatis- factory. Generally more. There is a further consideration : The people of Chicago have voted upon this question, unlike some other questions, by a large proportion. The people of Chicago have voted upon it after it was thoroughly dis- cussed, and a great deal of personal in- terest aroused throughout the city. And the vote in the city as taken was over- whelmingly in favor of the elective board. I do not wish to go into the details of making me believe finally that this is the best way out of more or less difficult problems for our municipality at this time. I wish to make this point: I wish to present this motion. I hope it will be thoroughly discussed. I believe the judgment of this Convention will be satisfactory to the people after it has been discussed. MR. RAYMER: I would like to ask a question of Mr. Robins. MR. ROBINS: I should be glad to answer. MR. RAYMER: You suggested the idea of taking the Board of Education from the field of partisan polities. Have you a remedy to suggest whereby that might be a reality? MR. ROBINS : I have only the sug- gestion offered by the chairman of the committee. The provision of the Oregon law, in my judgment, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Convention, arrives at that end with practical satisfaction, and is as near a complete reality as we can expect from any human device. I would very much rather that the chairman of the committee who has the matter rather more in hand than I have myself would discuss it, but I have gone over it measurably carefully as to the character- istic feature of the Oregon law. MR. RAYMER: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be w r ell to hear from Dr. Taylor on that point. THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Taylor. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, the Oregon law, as appears in this report, provides for an election at a special election ; the names of the candidates to be placed on the ballot in alpha- betical order, and with every hundred names a new name to head the list, so that a man who has his r lame at the head at the beginn ing with A shall not finish at the head. He will not be at the head al- ways. The deta tils of this law' are very carcfu lly d rawn out, and it would t ake some time to ( liscuss them thoroughly, but if they can be referred — the Orej gon law r , I was going to suggest, might be refcrrc >d to the Drafting Committee as the one worthiest of their attention to I secure from it provisions to safeguard December 20 570 1906 this alternative list being divorced from any political considerations. ME. SHANAHAN : That is merely in regard to elections. It merely says that we shall not have party columns and party circles. It in no way prevents party nominations. MR. TAYLOR: Yes, nominations by petition. MR. SHANAHAN : Nominations by petition? MR. HUNTER: Would Dr. Taylor tell us about how many names would be on this ballot in the City of Chicago? MR. TAYLOR : What do you mean ? How many names? MR. HUNTER: Yes; how many names? MR. TAYLOR: That would entirely depend upon the percentage of the peti- tioners that was decided upon by the Drafting Committee or by the Conven- tion. MR. HUNTER : There could be no limit, if they were selected, as to the number of names that went on. MR. TAYLOR: Yes; names could be put on only by a certain percentage of signatures appearing on a certain peti- tion; the total could be fixed. MR. HUNTER: It would have to provide for 100,000 to be on the list. There would be that many applications in my opinion. It would not be that. MR, TAYLOR: I should think it might. THE CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen, you have heard the motion of Mr. Robins. MR. RAYMER: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a word on this ques- tion. If we adopt the Oregon law in con- nection with this matter it seems to me that we would have to revise our entire election law, which I question very much would be feasible at this time. And, be- lieving that it would be almost imprac- ticable at this time to do it, I am in- clined to think that we would find our- selves throwing our Board of Education right into the very jaws of the political party; and that instead of freeing our- selves and our Board of Education from politics would be tying ourselves up to the political game worse than we have ever been known to be tied up to it in this city. My judgment is that it would be a misfortune to the school system of Chicago if we were to have the charter contain a provision whereby the Board of Education would be elective. The people of Chicago are usually to be trusted in the selection of the chief magistrate. They have usually shown good judgment. The members of the Board of Education that have been ap- pointed in the past have been men of integrity. No one man can select a board of twenty-four and have that en- tire body of men satisfactory to every- one. But, as a rule, the majority of those members have been gentlemen who have been able to administer the affairs of the educational department of this community in a satisfactory way. The only objection that I have got against the present system is the size of the board, the number of members that it contains. And I want to say, Mr. Chair- man, at this point, that I have in the hands of the Secretary an amendment on that point. Humbly feeling this way about it as one member of this Conven- tion, I believe it would be a mistake — the greatest mistake we could make, to provide for the election of the members of the Board of Education. MR. REVELL: Mr. Chairman, I sin- cerely hope that Mr. Robins ’ motion will not prevail. I had the pleasure of serv- ing on the Board of Education for three years. The board that I served with was appointed by the mayor. That board consisted of gentlemen well selected, re- presenting all parts of the City of Chi- cago ; to a large extent representing special parts of the City of Chicago. The selection of the Board of Education — that board which is probably the most December 20 571 1906 sacred in its work of any board in the City of Chicago — should be done with extreme care. The man who is mayor and who does not do it with extreme care is not a good or a careful mayor, and does not act in the interest of the people of the City of Chicago. I believe that Mr. Robins’ idea will, as Alderman Raymer says, throw the educational in- stitution of the City of Chicago right back into polities. We well know that when tickets are made up in a political way they are made up as the result of trading in politics. A good many people claim now, and have claimed for months back, that the coming election in the spring will result largely from trades which have been made in the past. Now, I do not see so very much danger in that so far as other elections are con- cerned. I do not care to consider them here tonight. But anything that will bring the educational system in this city into politics will be a danger that is directed at youth ; at your children in the, schools of the City of Chicago. And I think I know what I am talking about, because what little education I have, I received in schools in Chicago, and by attending night schools in the schools of the City of Chicago. Now, I sincerely hope that we throw responsibility for the appointment of the School Board onto the mayor of the City of Chicago. Let that responsibility place the mayor just where he deserves to be placed. And you will never be able to get a well selected Board of Education — if I did not fear to tread upon the toes of some gentlemen who are present tonight I would go into the matter a little further and classify how and why these members should be se- lected, but I say MK. ROBINS: 1 hope the gentlemen won ’t allow any person present here from preventing him enlightening the Convention on any matters that will help this Convention reaching a sound decision. I, as one, may assure him I will not feel that my toes are tread upon. MR, REVELL: Well, my friends, I will let it go at that suggestion that I have made. The Board of Education must be carefully selected. So far as the number of the Board of Education is concerned, whether it be fifteen or wheth- er it be twenty-one — so far as the num- ber is concerned just so far there should be representation ; so far as the differ- ent elements of the city are concerned. I certainly hope that you will vote down the proposition on the motion made by Mr. Robins. MR, BROSSEAU: Mr. Chairman, I have had the honor of being a member of this Educational Committee. We have spent a great deal of time in look- ing over the ground, and the effect of elective bodies and appointive bodies, as they exist in the different cities ; and it has been proven beyond any doubt that in large cities elective bodies were a failure. And for the very simple rea- son that a member of the Board of Edu- cation is considered a very minor office; and when a voter gets down to the bot- tom of the list, while voting: “Oh, ” he says, “I will let it go on the whole list as it is; I will pay no attention to the list of individuals therein. ’ ’ That seems to have been the actual experience in large cities like Philadelphia and New York. 1 believe that the boards of educa- tion for many years — and I have lived here a few years — have been in general very good, and I am in favor that we retain the old system of appointment by the mayor, confirmed by the - council. MR, POST: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that Mr. Revell did not continue his classification; or, at least, make his classification of school boards, because I think, perhaps, there may be inter- esting comparisons that might have re- sulted. I am quite sure he would not have stepped on my toes — not so as to December 20 572 1906 hurt me. I have not any tender corns there. I am perfectly willing to have the present School Board, to which il- lusion was doubtless made, compared Y 7 ith the school boards that have been giving away the property of the children of the City of Chicago to prominent newspapers in the City of Chicago who represent the same side on this ques- tion that Mr. Bevell has been represent- ing. Since Mr. Revell has not gone any further in his classification I won’t go any further into mine, but I am willing to meet him, or anyone else, here, or anywhere else, upon a comparison of the present School Board with the school boards that have been appointed during the past ten or twelve years. I should be willing for personal consider- ations, perhaps, to omit the School Board on which Mr. Bevell served; but that is the only exception that I think I would be prepared to make. Now, Mr. President, w r e have before this Convention three recommendations for an elective board. And not a single basis of opposition to an elective board except such as comes from political sources. One of the recommendations that we have, for an elective board, comes, as the chairman of the committee has stated, from the Principals’ Association of the schools of the City of Chicago. They, it appears, have appeared before this committee and stated their prefer- ence for an elective board. We have also the recommendation of the Federa- tion of Labor, which may be presumed to represent to some extent the parents of the school children of the City of Chicag, perhaps to a larger extent than any other body that has either appeared in, is represented in, or influences in any way this Convention. And in addition to' that we have had under the public policy law a proposition for an elective school board, which, as Mr. Robins says, was discussed extensively throughout the city, and it carried by a large majority of the voters who voted upon the sub- ject. You may say in reply that all the people did not vote. Well, the gentle- man wants a test of intelligence in vot- ing. It is by this method of voting that we get a test of intelligence. The ability to read and write, and to construe the constitution is not necessarily a test of intelligence in voting. The man who votes on a referendum proposition is the man that shows that he has intelligence on that subject and his interest in it, which- ever way he votes. . That decides his right to vote, and he is the only person that can decide on that question intelli- gently. The gentlemen who disfranchised themselves on that occasion have no right to point to the fact that they did that, and that, therefore, this was not a full vote. It was a full vote; it was a ma- jority vote. We have thus three recommendations, the Principals ’ Association, the Federa- tion of Labor, and a public opinion vote of the City of Chicago. We are told this will draw the question into politics. What better way is there of throwing a question of this kind into politics than by requiring that the appointment be made by the mayor and confirmed by the City Council. The mayor is elected as a political candidate, and the mem- bers of the council are almost every one elected as political candidates. What can you expect but political influencees to control the appointments made by the mayor and controlled by the council even for the school board? In the same proposition we have in the report of the committee an ex- planation of how there can be an elec- tive school board which shall not put the question into politics. They say the members of the Board of Education shall be nominated by petition, by petition alone, and this will tend to keep the matter out of partisan polities. They say that the members of the board shall December 20 573 1906 be elected by a general ticket from the city at large, and on petition, put on petition. They shall be elected at a special election. We have special elec- tions for the judiciary, in order to get that question out of politics, and that has been done. But a place on the bench is a position not only of honor, but of emolument. A place on the school board is a place of no emolument, and if we are to take the view of the newspapers upon that subject, the local newspapers, no matter how hard or how conscien- tiously the Avork may have been done, it is a position that is without credit, and without any very great honor, no matter how conscientiously the work may have been done. They also say that the ballot for the election of members of the Board of Education shall not indicate the po- litical affiliation of the candidates; that the accumulative system shall prevail. We are told that if we haA T e this system we AA'ill be overburdened AA'ith candidates by petition. One hundred thousand can- didates will be nominated by petition, so Ave are told. Mr. Chairman, that has a familiar sound to me. I participated in the early agitation for the Australian ballot system in this country, in the state that Avas the first to propose it and the last to get it, and Ave Avere told, always by politicians, that if Ave got the Aus- tralian ballot we would have more poli- tics than ever. Well, Ave did not alto- gether get rid of politics; Ave didn’t want to; avp did not get rid of partisan poli- tics as much as Ave desired, which A\ f as largely due to the fact that the Austra- lian ballot was emasculatd — no, worse than that, if anything could be Avorse; the Australian ballot Avas not entirely to blame. The politicians did not want to keep the nominations out of politics, so they made the Australian ballot in such a way as to keep nominations within politics as much as possible, and cer- tainly the Australian ballot has served all the more to extend the power of par- tisan politics, notwithstanding that par- tisan politics, or whatever politics Ave have had, that the Australian ballot AA’as not devised to further partisan politics, and it has not changed the situation any to have candidates nominated by petition. They said that every man A\dio A\ r ants to get a little notoriety can get his name on a ballot by petition ; there are a lot of people who Avill sign a petition in a city like this, and it was at one time seriously proposed to have a large pecuniary condition attached to going upon the ballot. We have found the experience all over the country that if Ave were to ha\ T e nominations by petition on school elec- tions the whole tendency would be to create Avhat I might call, for Avant of a better term, a question of school poli- tics, that is to say, a question as to the government of the schools, which would draw the attention of the whole voting population of Chicago to the con- sideration of the schools ’ part on our partisan politics, the schools’ part to- wards partisan politics in our school matters. If, instead of an election by the people, Ave maintained the system of appointment, Avhat is the best we can expect? Something that is being de- manded over this city, a non-partisan board? There is no man in this room prob- ably so green in politics as not to knoAV that a non-partisan board of any kind is not Avhat it professes to be. In other words, when people cry for a non-par- tisan board, what they mean is not a non-partisan board. They mean a by- partisan board; and if you can find any- thing that tends more to corruption in polities than a by-partisan board, I don ’t know Avhat it is. When you get a democratic mayor and he appoints two democrats, and two republicans who vote the democratic ticket on that board, and when you get a republican and he appoints two republicans who vote December 20 574 1906 the democratic ticket, or the reverse — the republicans usually vote the re- publican ticket and democrats usually vote the democratic ticket, or with a par- ticular faction to which the mayor be- longs, and you get a combination which is inevitably corrupt, because there is a divided responsibility. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that prob- ably in addition to political considera- tions there is another consideration in connection with this board. I think that, in all probability, in part, the ob- jection to the election of this board arises from the fact that if you have an elective board the women of Chicago will vote as well as the men, and that -we may expect from that influence in our school a taking out of partisan politics and a making of a system of the board less and less corrupt. We shall have the benefit of the votes of the women of the City of Chicago if we make it an elec- tive board. I know it is not very politic for me to call attention to this fact, because I know this prejudice against having wo- men participate in voting of any kind; but, Mr. Chairman, if women are to participate in any kind of public affairs, what is more proper for them to par- ticipate in than the 'election of the gov- erning body of the public school system. The mothers of this city should have a voice in the selection of the body that governs the school system, and it is only by making the board elective that they can have a voice. I think that this Con- vention will place a land mark right here on one of the most important ques- tions that have been considered by either deciding for or against the election of the school board. First, if they decide against it, they are deciding to disfran- chise the mothers of the City of Chi- cago in the selection of a governing body of a school system; and if they decide against it, they are placing the manage- ment of the school system back into the hands of the mayor and the council, who are confessedly always of necessity, for the present, elected through par- tisan considerations and for partisan ends, and who will doubtless, being human, carry out partisan purposes in connection with the school system, as in other branches of the government. MR. YOPICKA: Mr. Chairman, as, a citizen of the City of Chicago, I am not afraid that we ever will have in the City of Chicago a bad or corrupt school board, whether the school board is elected or appointed. If it is appointed, the mayor will select the very best men he can possibly get for that office, because there is no salary or wages at- tached to it. And it is the same with political parties. If the board should be elected they will certainly elect the very best men that can be to serve as members of the board. And so, taking this into considera- tions, I believe that there is no danger either way. But I wish to say that the gentlemen speaking before me painted the picture in dark colors when they say there is a danger if the board is elected. There is no danger in Boston, where the board is elected; and there is no danger in St. Louis, where the board is elected. On the contrary, they say in St. Louis they have the best school board in the whole of America. For that reason, you do not have to be afraid, gentlemen,, that we will have trouble on that ac- count. I only say that if you gentlemen wish to put the ladies in the charter to have one chance and that is to give them the right for school trustees — as you all know, we men of business, we have no time to attend to things which our wives or the ladies attend to every day, to the children; they take more interest in the education of the children than we do, because they have more time to do it in. For this reason, I believe that the state- ment made by Mr. Post is correct, and whether you vote for one or the other December 20 575 1906 you cannot miss it. We will always have a good school board in the City of Chi- cago. For my part, I would prefer the elec- tion of the school board, and I will vote that way. ME. PEND AE VIS : Mr. Chairman, I rise simply for the purpose of asking Mr. Post a question. He said the women would be disfranchised if we decided for an appointive board. I wanted to ask him if the women were disfranchised in the selection of the last school board? MB. GUEEIN : Mr. Chairman, I think the main question here is of what class of men the board is composed. Now, it seems to me they should be composed of perhaps of about four classes of men, and of two mainly. The members of the board should be — some of the members of the board should be educators; the bal- ance of the board should be business men, and those business men should be composed not only of men of ordinary business, but they should be composed at least of professional men. It is a good thing to have at least one good law- yer on the board, and I think it is well to have one or two doctors on the board, if I do say it. Now, I will tell you why — you laugh at that — I have taken the opportunity of visiting some of the schools, and I find, in many instances, the sanitary condition of the schools is in a most deplorable condition ; and I have been informed by teachers who have been in the schools for years that they have always been so. And, for that reason, I think you ought to have some doctors on the board who know something about sanitary af- fairs. And, not only that, but who know something about the heating and the ventilating of the buildings, which is one of the most important things in the physical construction of a building. Now, then, another matter, from the his- tory of the past, without wanting to throw’ any reflection upon any of the previous boards, it is very evident to my mind that you ought to have good sound business men who will carefully look after the property of the school board, and especially in the leasing of the prop- erty of the school board. We could point out to you at the present time leases that have been made, some fifteen or twenty years ago, where people are not paying more than one-third, and in some instances not more than -one-fourth, for rent that ought to be paid for the rent of your property. It is said to be the property of the school board; it is the property of the City of Chicago has been practically given away by members of the school board in the past. And notwithstanding ME. BEVELL: Will the Doctor give away to a question? ME. GUEEIN: Yes, sir. MB. EEYELL: Can you tell me how the prices made for school board prop- erty fifteen years ago, in long leases we will say, compare with long leases made by private individuals at the same time? ME. GUEEIN : Yes, sir. I can give you an instance of it. ME. EEYELL: I w r ould like to have it. MB. GUEEIN : Can you tell me, sir, what is the value of the southeast cor- ner of Dearborn street and Madison street today, and wdiat is the value paid for it? I mean the property occupied by the Tribune Building? ME. BEVELL: It is a valuable piece of property, but I think in a great growing city like this, where values change rapidly, and what is done by the public is not different from what is done by the private individual. MB. GUEETN: And the very fact that this is a great city and a growing city, members in the past ought to have taken that into account, which they did not take into account, and instead of getting about $47,000 for that property, today we ought to get over $100,000 for December 20 576 1906 the property. We are paying there to- day, rent, as I understand it, of about $32,000 a year, and we are getting from the Tribune Building about $47,000 a year. These are facts ; they are not opinions. Now, then, in reference to the men who should — the educational department. I hold that you ought to have men upon that board who are as well qualified to run that school system as even the best possible superintendent that can be got- ten in the United States — and you can find them right here in Chicago, plenty of them. They are not necessarily great talkers, but they know something about how schools should be run. These men are practical educators, men who have been brought up in the public schools themselves and who have been educators in the public schools. We ought to have :at least three of such men, — men of that ■character. You ought to have in addi- tion to that a man on the school board who knows all about the construction of buildings and the kind and quality of materials; and, not only that, but even he should be a plumber, and when I say the construction of buildings I intended to include that, of course. You ought to have, as I said before, a lawyer who knows when contracts are let that they are the right sort of contracts. You ought to have him on the board. It would be very well, of course, to em- ploy one, but you ought to have one of those things yourself. I am speaking of the members of the board now; they should know those things, and for those reasons I da claim, notwithstanding that I am very sorry to differ with my friend ^Nlr. Post, because I know he is thor- oughly sincere in what he says and what he does; — I believe you can get that class of men better by appointment than you can by election. It is all very well to picture out how you are going to elect good mem- bers of a school board. When ‘those members are selected by petition, or any other way, or by a convention, they are not selected always with a view to their fitness for the school board. They will be selected for some other reason, in my judgment, and, therefore, I would make it incumbent upon the mayor to appoint at least three or four classes of men of the very best possible that we could find in the city, and they should be, as I said before, good sound business men of integrity, and men that would know that this city is growing and that pro- perty is liable to be worth more in the future than it has been in the past. Who would think, fifteen years ago — I have been here long enough to know this — who would think fifteen years ago that that property which I pointed out on that corner, now occupied by the Tribune Building, would not be worth more than $47,000 in the future? Look back. You are all old enough to know better than that. Then there is other property. For example, I can find you property on State Street, almost right back of the Tribune, that is not half the size of the property occupied by the Tribune Build- ing, inside lots, for which there is more rent paid now than there is for that oc- cupied by the Tribune Building. The same can be said about other property. Now, we have property at issue; we have property now; there has to be a revaluation of property on State Street. W T hat do I find — I have been in com- mittees there already. A lawyer is em- ployed ; he comes in and talks to us there for two or three hours, and we didn ’t have a word to say — he didn ’t have a word to say, excepting pointing out to us how property is going to be less valuable in the City of Chicago in future. Do you believe that, gentlemen? I do not. I have talked with some of the best real estate agents in the City of Chicago, and I am very glad to get the advice of some of the best real estate men in Chicago, and they tell me that December 20 5/7 1906 this property is worth from $20,000 to $25,000 a year; and those people refuse to pay more than $13,000 a year for it. And they have a lawyer to defend them. That is the way people have been hoodwinked in the past. We do not pro- pose to be hoodwinked that way in the future, notwithstanding we are the Dunne Board, as you call it. As I said before, I think you are likely to get the class of better men if you appoint them than by election. MR. CRILLY: Mr. Chairman, the Doctor has attacked the integrity of the school board at the time the board lease was made. I would like the privilege of answering him on that question. Here is the letter addressed to me by the three gentlemen that made the valuation on the Tribune corner at the time they got that lease. Here is what they say: Chicago, December 27, 1901. D. F. Crilly, 1G7 Dearborn street, Chicago, 111. Dear Sir: — We understand that you are about to appear before the Board of Education for the purpose of arrang- ing a fixed rental on your lots on the cor- ner of Dearborn and Monroe streets for the balance of the term. We would say to you that at the time we appraised this property in 1895 we were of the opinion that the valuation fixed by us at that time would be the basis for a fixed valua- tion for the balance of the term. We are still of. the same opinion. We can- not but feel that you should be treated as fairly at the other tenants in that block have been treated with their leases, and hope that in some way you can come to an amicable arrangement with the Board of Education in this matter. Yours respectfully, (Signed) John McLaren, Owynn Garnett, Eugene Carey. Now, this was addressed — this letter was written in 1901. They had not changed their minds up to that time, ^t the time that the Tribune people set- tled their- lease with the school board, there was an ordinance in this city that prevented buildings from being erected more than twelve stories high. The Tribune permit was taken out for a twelve-story building. At the time they got to the twelfth story the limit was taken off the height of building, and they added five more stories to it, which made the ground so much more valuable, of course. That is in answer to the charges made against the members of the school board at that time. Here are three gentlemen paid by the school board at that time to make that examination. MR. TAYLOR: I would like to know the relevancy of this argument upon the question before the Convention. THE CHAIRMAN : What is your point of order 1 ? MR. TAYLOR : I would like to know what relevancy this particular discussion, which I think should come up at some other time, has on the question of the election or appointment of the school board. THE CHAIRMAN : The question is upon the excellence of one or the other classes, and the Chair is impressed with the relevancy of it. MR. HILL: I don’t think it is neces- sary to address myself as to the sincer- ity of the members. 1 assume that every member is sincere in his statements. We are here for light on various questions that are brought before us, and we are glad to hear the expressions on different sides from those who have had experi- ence in this direction. Now, I have had a great deal— and I again raised a question of sincerity here in regard to placing of the responsibility which we have discussed — 1 mean as a body, not individually. We have heard a. great deal in the early part of this Convention about reducing the number of elective officers in the City of Chicago, the argument being that, by reducing December 20 578 1906 that number we would increase the re- sponsibility of the elective. And the argument is advanced by electing the mayor and perhaps the city treasurer and having all the rest of the city officers appointed, which would increase the re- sponsibility of the rest. That, I believe, has received favorable consideration. Now, w r e have reached a point, perhaps more important it becomes nearly to each one of us and to each citizen of the City of Chicago than possibly any other point that we have discussed in this body. We are right up to the question as to whether it is advisable whether the school board shall be elected or ap- pointed. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion on both sides of this question, and theoretically they both have strong points. There are some practical points possibly that have not been looked at. It seems to me that in the selection of a school board there should be some means by "which those members should be selected by reason of their peculiar fitness for the position they are to oc- cupy. They, some of them, should be specialists along the line, of the work for which they are chosen, right along the line of work suggested by the last speaker. It should be made up of men of different ability. Experienced in dif- ferent lines as suggested. And I am clearly of the opinion that they can be secured with greater certainty, and with greater success, in an appointive body than you can by an elective body; but there is a question on this election point, and I want to reflect for a moment. We hear a good deal of talk about taking these things out of politics and nominating by petition, placing the names on the ballot without designating their party affiliation, and I suppose plac- ing them along in alphabetical order, as has been suggested before. I don ’t see where you get any safety in that form of ticket any more than you do in the regular nominating ticket of political parties. But if people are nominated by petition many of them will be nominated by reason of their prominence in other lines perhaps not at all related to this class of work. If people are nominated by petition and placed on that ticket without designating party affiliation, then how are you going to learn the peculiar fitness of each one of those men? Where are you going to get that information? I suppose from the newspapers. And that brings us right down to the point of what I want to bring before you tonight. How many of the gentlemen here present now knew of his knowledge of the fitness of any five, or we will say ten, put it at that, if you like, of the candidates for municipal judges at our last election? How many of you knew of your own knowledge, or from what was told you by those in whom you had confidence, perhaps, or who had personal acquaintance with any five of those men? Where are you going to get your infor- mation as to the fitness of these men? From the newspapers? Very well. Sup- pose they are nominated by petition and they are on the ticket in alphabetical order or otherwise, who makes up the ticket for you then? The manager down here in some office. The manager of what? The manager of a newspaper, a corporation ; a manager selected in what way, for what? Because of his ability to make that corporation pay dividends, just like any other corporation ; a man- ager without responsibility except to his stockholders. Do you want that done? Do you believe, gentlemen, that that is any more a libel on the whole than a party ticket nominated by your own party? Do you believe you are any safer where the manager makes up your ticket and prints, it in his paper as your ticket, and people cut it out and base their conclusions upon that judgment of the manager, than you are whether a re- publican party or a democratic party, o/ December 20 579 1906 any other party selects the candidates or presents them to you nder the head of whatever organization that candidate may belong to? I don’t think so. I don’t think that is any safer. I don’t think there is as much responsibility in it; the manager may be opposed to one appoint- ed, but he assumes no great responsibility, no responsibility whatever; and I have known of instances where they have changed inside of two days without apol- ogy and without responsibility to any- body else but their stockholders. But there is a litle further to look into this thing. Suppose parties or candidates are nominated by the party, what does that mean? If one of my friends or acquaintances sends me a man with a letter of recommendation saying that they have known him a long time and vouch for him, that has some force and some effect on me, and I may be able to do something for that man. If people in a certain locality know a man and endorse the man for office, that in- dicates the way those people think of him, if they endorse him and stand by him, they believe he is a man fitted for the position. I say to you gentlemen now I have more confidence in that kind of nomination than I have in nomina- tions made by the manager of a corpora- tion, sitting back here in some back room, who is responsible to nobody but his stockholders. A corporation is a corporation, and a manager is a man- ager, and that is all there is to it. Now, how are you going to make up your ticket — your election ticket? How are you going to make your recommendation with any degree of certainty on these propositions? 1 believe that a far safer way is, that it is safer to place the re- sponsibility on one man, and that man the mayor, with the approval of the City Council, also assuming the responsibility to their people — I think that is far the safer way. I think a man will select his board with greater certainty, and cer- tainly choose them for their individual merit for the position, and give us a better school board in that way than any method of election I am familiar with. I heartily agree with Dr. Guerin in his remarks. I think we ought to put the responsibility there and have these men appointed, and have the question of re- sponsibility as definitely located as pos- sible. We have heard different phases of these things, and I feel it would be safer, I feel safer in appointing these men and placing the responsibility where it be- longs than I would in having a petition hawked around the streets by paid can- vassers — and that is the way it is done in these days — hawked around the street by paid canvassers at so much a name, at a certain amount of money per name, by some of these men who have money, by some man that has plenty of money with which to get names. Now, I understand — coming to our special elections, I am told that it costs about $160,000 to hold an election. Who is going to pay that? If we put this in the appointive w T ay I take it that we wall be freed from that cost, if we have the appointive method of filling these offices, following that up by the proper period of time which these offices shall be held for. It would be a great saving for the City of Chicago. MR. GUERIN : I rise to a question of personal privilege. There was one point in regard to the lease on the Tri- bune Building THE CHAIRMAN: What is the question of personal privilege? MR. GUERIN: This question: I claimed to state the previous lease valua- tion — that previous to the last valuation it was a certain figure on that basis, and now it is a valuation for ninety-nine years. THE CHAIRMAN: That is not a question of personal privilege. MR. .TONES: I have heard a good many expressions here of the hope that December 20 580 1906 we might have a non-partisan school board. Now, I do not expect to get a non-partisan school board, if it is elec- tive, and I do not expect a non-partisan school board if it is appointive; I think in either case that the board will be more or less partisan, and it will either represent some political party if it is elective, or it will represent some admin- istration if it is appointive. I believe there is a way to secure a: non-partisan school board if that is desired. But there is a question whether the people of Chicago would want a really non-parti- san school board. I believe the ideal school board would be one that would be absolutely removed from tbe power of any mayor or the City Council or any administration to change its com- plexion. The only way you could se- cure that would be to select the board in such a way that none of those fac- tors could at any time change its complete complexion. For instance, I might illustrate : Sup- pose you had a board of twelve mem- bers, and suppose one-third of that board were to be elected at large, that is, four members, two we will say every tAvo years. Suppose that a third of that board, four members, were to be ap- pointed by the mayor and the City Coun- cil ; suppose a third of that board were to be selected by the board itself, you Avould have a board there which was one-third appointive, one-third electee and one-third self-perpetuating. Now, the mayor and the council elected could elect one-sixth of the members of the board, that is, tAvo, by appointment ; the political parties in any nomination that they carried on, they could nominate and elect one-sixth of the entire members of the board, tAvo members. The board it- self would have opportunity to in a mea- sure control a part of its oAvn body. I can see adA’antages in such a system ; I can see advantages even if you elect a self-perpetuating body, ha\ T e one-half of the members of the school board ap- pointed and one-half elected. If you have only a portion of the school board ap- pointive, then it is impossible for the mayor or the City Council of any city administration to dominate the board by appointment, because they do not at any one time have sufficient members ’ vacan- cies to be filled to change the complex- ion of the board. And this is the dan- gerous thing, the change of the complex- ion of the board constantly. Now, if one-half of that very board were elective it would be impossible for the voters or for any political party by nomination and carrying the election to change the complexion. It often happens that there are mem- bers upon the school board Avho are very valuable members, and Avho cannot receive reappointment at the hands of the mayor because they may be hostile to him, or he may not be particularly interested in them. I believe it would be very desirable for the members of the school board, having confidence in a man Avho has demonstrated his ability, to have power to retain that man upon the school board. Therefore, I belieA r e the self-perpetuating feature, one-third, or a lesser quantity, would be very desir- able in the school board. I believe that such a school board, made up by a se- lection in those three ways, that you could in such a manner get a non-par- tisan school board, and that is the only way you could get it. By an electee board you Avill get a board which is partisan ; and I have had citizens of the City of Boston talk to me about the school question and have had them say to me, ‘ ‘ Whatever you do, don ’t have any eleetiA T e school board.” And I have heard citizens of Chicago say, “You are a member of the Charter Convention ; Avhatever you do in that Convention do not perpetuate the appointive school board.” 1 have come to the conclusion that an electi\ r e board that would be one- December 20 581 1906 half appointive and one-half of it elec- tive, that would be suitable to some, but I would like to have an elective board, because in every case you get a partisan board — in either case you get a partisan board. I believe that we would make a step in the right direction if this Con- vention went to the extent of having one- half appointive and one-half elective, and I believe we would not make any mis- take, and we would go to the full length if we had a three-part selection. I simply make these suggestions to the Convention. I do not propose to urge these views upon this convention ; as between these two propositions of an elective board and an appointive board, I shall vote for the appointive board, be- cause I am opposide to adding elective officers on our ballot. I believe with only one-half of our board to be elective, and with only one member of the school board, or at the utmost two members, at any biennial election, that with the addition of these officers as elective of- ficers, that it would not be objectionable, because under our municipal elections we shall have only the mayor and the city treasurer, and one aldermen, three men, as I understand, upon the ballot as it now stands. I can see no objec- tion to putting one member of the school board on, to adding one member, or even two members of the school board at any biennial election, but I believe that the election of the members as elective of- ficers would not be objectionable for any of the reasons that have been urged against an elective school board as a whole, but I believe it would seriously be an objection to having them wholly elec- tive. I merely leave that thought with the convention, that if you want, really want a non-partisan board you are not get- ting it in the form in which it is now; and the question is, do you want a non- partisan board, do you prefer that, or do you prefer that we shall have a ' partisan board, or an elective or ap- pointive board? MR. GUERIN: I desire to ask Mr. Jones a question. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shedd has the floor. MR. SHEDD: I yield to Dr. Guerin. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you yield to the Doctor? MR, SHEDD: Yes, sir. MR. GUERIN: Mr. Jones suggests that we should have half of the board elective and half of the board appoint- ive, that we might not have a partisan board. Supposing that half of the board is elected at the same time that the mayor is elected, what is there to hinder the mayor from appointing the balance of the board just like these men that have been elected, in the same party? MR. JONES: Dr. Guerin overlooked the fact that I stated in my suggestion this point, that those members who are elected, suppose the number be twelve members, six would be elected, and I would not suggest that these six be elected at one time; it may be spread out in a series of years, and so that at no time there be more than two elected, so that it would be impossible for the mayor by appointment to manipulate more than say one-sixth or one-eighth, and the balance of the board would be regularly provided for as suggested by me. MR. SHEDD: Mr. Chairman, I will not detain this Convention but just a moment. It has occurred to me during this discussion from the remarks of some of the gentlemen who have spoken that they have lost sight of one of the greatest necessities in the management of school affairs in this city. We are forgetting, perhaps, that the Board of Education has in its control and spends something like $12,000,000 annually. Now, T would like to submit to this Convention that I do not believe there is any member of this Convention who December 20 582 1906 would ever organize a business of his own — and we should look upon these matters first as matters of business, for they are just matters of business — I do not believe any member of this Con- vention would call to his staff of em- ployes as assistants, or members of his firm, an architect because he thought he might want to build a building or a plumber because he thought he might want to do some plumbing, or a brick- layer because he thought he would have to lay a lot of bricks. I do not be- lieve he would call upon a lawyer be- cause he might need to consult a law- yer. But, I do think that he would try to bring into his association, men of business affairs, men of administrative ability. That, to my mind, from my observation of the school board in the last few years, has been the necessity — -the necessity of greater administra- tive ability. I think it is ,a very easy matter for people of good administra- tive ability to hire an architect to de- sign a building, or a builder to build a building, because such a person will know much more about those things than he does himself. He will not have to consult a plumber and know all about the plumbing in the building, or consult a bricklayer on the board about good bricks; I do not think he would have to have a roofer to consult about the roofs of his buildings. What he wants on the Board of Education is men of administrative ability. Such men know nothing about such matters. If you will give us a proper administra- tive Board of Education, we will take care of all the rest and select the proper men to carry out its purposes. I am very much in favor of fixing the responsibility, not of dividing it by choosing a miscellaneous board by electing — part elective and part nomi- native. I am in favor of fixing the whole responsibility upon the mayor of this city for the selection of an ad- ministrative board, and who will solve, in my mind, this problem, by their wis- dom in hiring their educators and for fixing the responsibility. MR. CRILLY : I want to say a w r ord, Mr. Chairman, a single word, in favor of an appointive school board by the mayor. I, as a school lessee, have been dealing with this board for thirty odd years, and I, right here, want to say that the school board has always dealt fairly with me. I think they have safe- guarded interests of the people of Chi- cago in handling school properties and in getting the best prices they could get for them, and in making leases for long terms; they have done the best they could. And the Tribune Company, and the Board of Assessors and the ap- praisers and other people have done the same thing. I think they have been very fair to the people and I think we should favor the appointing power being in the hands of the mayor. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll. MR. SHEPARD: State the motion? MR. RAINEY: Mr. Chairman, I be- lieve that the scheme of the creation of the Board of Education, as presented by Senator Jones, has considerable merit. Before the roll is called I was going to suggest that we embody in a resolution an idea for the scheme of the creation of the board as has been suggested, and that the Convention give the ideas serious consideration. If it is possible, and Senator Jones will take that action, I was going to make a motion that we defer action on this matter until the next meeting of the Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: You heard the motion. All those in favor signify by saying aye; opposed no. A motion to defer is lost and the Secretary will call the roll upon Mr. Robins’ motion that the Board of Education be elec- tive. Yeas — Ritter, Dever, Kittleman, December 20 583 1906 Linehan, McGoorty, O’Donnell, Owens, Post, Rainey, Robins, Yopicka — 11. Nays — Baker, Beebe, Bennett, Bros- seau, Brown, Carey, Church, Crilly, Dixon, G. W.; Eckhart, B. A.; Eidmann, Erickson, Gansbergen, Guerin, Hill, Hunter, Jones, Lathrop, Lundberg, MacMillan, McCormick, McKinley, 'Merriam, Paullin, Pendarvis, Powers, Raymer, Revell, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Sunny, Tay- lor, Werno, White, Wilkins, Zimmer — 39. (At the conclusion of the roll call.) MR. ZIMMER: I intended to vote no. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Zimmer changes his vote from aye to no. MR. ZIMMER: I made a mistake in voting. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon Mr. Rob- ins’ motion that the Board of Educa- tion shall be elective, the ayes are 11 and the noes 39. The motion is lost. MR. RE YELL: Mr. Chairman, I now move that the Board of Education shall be appointive by the mayor. THE CHAIRMAN: It has been moved and seconded that the Board of Education shall be appointive by the mayor. MR. SNOW : I would like to say — MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jones. MR. JONES: I would like to ask Mr. Revell if he means by the mayor, or by the mayor with the approval of the City Council. I think the main proposition must conclude with the con- sent of the City Council. MR. REVELL: With the approval of the City Council. MR. SNOW: I have an amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the amendment of Alderman Snow. THE SECRETARY: To amend by inserting after the word “ approval” on the last line, the following: “With the consent of two-thirds of the elected members of the City Council.” MR. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, that does not read quite straight. Evident- ly I have made some mistake there. It should be 1 1 consent, ’ ’ after 1 1 approval. ’ ’ I want the sense of it to be: “With the approval of two-thirds of the elected members of the City Council. ’ ’ MR. TAYLOR: I think this amend- ment need not be voted upon until we come to the remainder under the order of procedure — resolutions on page 543 should be substituted for that on page 56. THE CHAIRMAN : The question before the house, Dr. Taylor, is the motion of Mr. Robins’ to adopt MR. TAYLOR: No, that is not the motion. THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Revell ’s motion — Mr. Robins moved to adopt the first section, which provides for the election of the Board of Education. That is the first section voted upon. And that was divided down to the next section. Now — where is that record? MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, have I not the floor? THE CHAIRMAN : That question was divided to the next question as to the number of members. The question which must be passed upon now is as to whether they should be appointed — by whom. MR. REVELL: I assumed that ques- tion was to be settled before the other was taken up. THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly. MR. REVELL: That was the rea- son I desired to move: “With the ap- proval of the City Council.” MR. JONES: In order that we may not be confused in considering this, I would like to call the attention of this body to the fact that Mr. Snow’s 11107 tion is practically as the first paragraph of Section 2, suggested by Mr. Taylor, printed, on page 492 of the record. It seems to me it would probably be bet- December 20 584 1906 ter at this point to take up this plan as presented by Professor Taylor and go through it resolution by resolution. MR. TAYLOR: If I have permis- sion I would like to move that the resolutions on page 543 be substituted for Section 18, on page 56, and be voted on section by section. THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor of that. I would like to ask if that reso- lution covers all the points that are to be considered by this Convention, first? MR. TAYLOR: Yes, as far as I have presented it. MR. RAYMER: I understand that the motion is as to procedure. THE CHAIRMAN: Professor Tay- lor moves to substitute the section re- ferred to by him for the section under consideration and moves in connection therewith that it be taken up section by section. MR. RAYMER: I have an amend- ment as to Section 2. THE CHAIRMAN: When that sub- ject is reached it will be taken up. MR. RE YELL: Mr. Chairman, in order to facilitate matters I withdraw my motion and accept the line that is mentioned by Professor Taylor. THE CHAIRMAN: As to the sub- stitution of page 543? MR. TAYLOR: I move that the res- olution on page 543 be substituted for Section 18, on page 56, and be voted upon section by section. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion. MR. SHANAHAN: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shanahan, yes, sir. MR. SHANAHAN: Before that mo- tion is put I would like to state that the Convention has been taking up con- siderable time this evening in trying to determine in which manner the Board of Education shall be selected, either by election or by appointment. I think that we ought to determine here and now who shall appoint the Board of Education, if there are to be appoint- ments. We have just voted on the question of electing the board, and that has been voted down. Now, let us vote direct on who will appoint the board. I think Mr. Revell’s motion was proper and to the point at this time. MR. REVELL: I renew the motion. MR. SHANAjHAN: I think we shall save time. MR. WHITE: That comes up under Section 2. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shanahan has the floor. MR. HUNTER: To a point of or- der. THE CHAIRMAN: What is your point of order? MR. HUNTER: My point of order is that we took up a certain resolution and voted upon it. But we divided it. We have 'considered one-half and we are therefore, about to consider the other half. THE CHAIRMAN: I think not. MR. HUNTER: No? Very well. THE CHAIRMAN: I think that is a different subject. Those in favor of the resolution MR. SHANAHAN: I think Dr. White is correct in stating that Mr. Tay- lor ’s resolution that that question comes up under Section 2. But we may de- bate that for an hour before we get to a point where we have been acting upon for the past two hours. Let us vote on the question now as submitted by Mr. Revell, as to whether the mayor shall appoint the board or not. THE CHAIRMAN: The question before the house is that the mayor of Chicago shall appoint the Board of Ed- ucation by and with the consent of the City Council. The amendment of Mr. Snow is “by and with the consent of /(wo-thirds of the City Council. ’ ’ / MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I de- sire to object to the “two-thirds," I believe that might prove to be a very V December 20 585 1906 dangerous obstacle on many important occasions. I tbink that the Convention should consider that a moment before it passes a stringent rule like that. X believe that the majority of the City Council would be a sufficiently large . number. It will enable the City Coun- cil to make very good appointments. I am not in favor of the two-thirds prop- osition. MK. TAYLOR: May I remark to the Convention that it has already voted a two-thirds majority in appoint- ments by the Park Commission; it seems to me that it is no less important in the Board of Education. MR. RAINEY: To a point of order. My point of order is as to the ques- tion before the house. Dr. Taylor was recognized and his motion was stated, and is therefore the business of the house. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair un- derstood Dr. Taylor consented that this motion should be put. That should be made clear. MR. McCORMICK: I rise to ask that the question be put on Alderman Snow’s motion, first, whether the board should be appointed by the mayor, and then what will be the confirming ma- jority. THE CHAIRMAN: If there are no objections the question will be divided. All those in favor of appointment of the Board of Education will signify the same by saying yae; those opposed no. It is carried. The question now is upon the number required to confirm; and the question is upon Alderman Snow’s motion that two-thirds shall be required to confirm the nomination. MR. DEVER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say one word on that. It would not be good business for us to give the minority of the members of the City Council an opportunity or the power to control nominations by the mayor. The argument that has been made here tonight against the elective system of constituting our school board has been that it was desirable to place the whole responsibility on the shoul- ders of the mayor. Now, if that argu- ment is good, and it was well meant, it is an argument against two-thirds of a majority for the confirmation of his appointment. It will place the power in the minority of the City Coun- cil, obstructive powers that will enable them at least .if not to nominate the school board, prevent the mayor from nominating the school board. If you want to leave the law as it now is. I want to center that responsibility you think it was a mistake to require two- thirds of a majority in reference to the Park Commission, or the park board. Personally, I would like to have that a majority. For instance, where there is really a desire to appoint an official, it is always possible to get a majority The main feature is the placing of re- sponsibility for this appointment on some one man; on some one head. If you make it a majority you can do that. If you make it a two-thirds vote there is divided responsibility over the appointees of that board, and it will be difficult for the public to determine whether the council is to blame for a bad appointment or the mayor. MR. TAYLOR: While not strenuous for the two-thirds majority, I want to say for the credit of the City Council, not having any disposition to interfere with the mayor in these appointments, that in a record of thirty-one years I cannot find that a City Council has ever turned down a nomination for the Board of Education by the mayor of Chicago. MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Chairman, T would like to speak on Alderman Dover’s suggestion in reference to the City Council of Chicago. The City Council of Chicago has always been approximately half democratic and half republican. The mayor of Chicago has December 20 586 1906 a great power, as was usually admitted in the earlier sessions of this Conven- tion,. If his appointment does not meet with universal approval then it becomes incumbent on some alderman to' object, or some group of aldermen, and it comes to be an issue between them and the mayor, who has not only his nomination to -support, but his rec- ord as being undisputed in appoint- ments to support. He has every reason to exercise all the power that the mayor has for the confirmation of his ap- pointment. It is more difficult under any circumstances, except the very most vicious, to get a majority of the council to vote against the mayor on an action of this kind. If you require two-thirds majority, it is possible when the appointment is decidedly doubtful for the minority to make its objections good. If the mayor is appointing a good man to the place the minority will have no basis upon which to object to it. I do not believe that the senate of the United States has been two-thirds republican constantly, if at all, in the last ten years. MR. DEVER: They have made good appointments, though. MR. McCORMICK: I was going to say I very much doubt that. The ap- pointments made by the nomination by the mayor with the confirming consent of two-thirds would make it possible for one-third, perhaps, to stop it; or it will make it absolutely necessary for the mayor to put up good men for the posi- tions. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon Mr. Snow’s amendment, and up- on that the Secretary will call the roll. MR. ROBINS: Mr. Chairman, may I THE CHAIRMAN: When your name is called. MR. ROBINS: That is rather late in the day. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair’s at- tention has been called and the Chair does not desire to cut Mr. Robins off. MR. TAYLOR: Is this vote on two- thirds, or a majority? MR. ROBINS: I want to suggest that the one-third cuts both ways. While the one-third would be a check on bad appointments possibly, if any particular interest wanted to stop the appointment of any particular person to the school board and got busy and got one-third of the City Council, that person could not be appointed. I wanted to make that clear. THE CHAIRMAN: Will the Secre- tary call the roll. MR, HUNTER: Will the Chair state the motion. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon a confirming vote of two-thirds. MR, HUNTER: Two-thirds? THE CHAIRMAN: On Mr. Snow’s motion to require two-thirds. Proceed. Yeas — Bennett, Church, Eckhart, B. A.; Eidmann, Erickson, Gansberger, Hunter, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Lundberg, MacMillan, McCormick, Mc- Goorty, McKinley, Paullin, Pendarvis, Raymer, Shedd, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Yopicka — 23. Nays — Baker, Brosseau, Brown, Ca- rey, Crilly, Ritter, Dever, Dixon, G. W. ; Guerin, Hill, Linehan, Merriam, O’Donnell, Owens, Post, Powers, Rai- ney, Revell, Robins, Shanahan, Sunny, Taylor, Werno, White, Wilkins, Zim- mer — 26. THE CHAIRMAN : Upon Mr. Snow ’s amendment the yeas are 23 and the noes 26. The motion is lost, and the question recurs upon Mr. Revell ’s mo- tion that the members of the Board of Education shall be appointed by and with the consent of a majority of the City Council. All those in favor of the motion I have just stated signify the same by saying aye; opposed no. It is carried. The question is now upon Dr. Tay- lor’s motion. December 20 587 1906 MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shepard. MR. SHEPARD: Just one sugges- tion. I will withdraw it if there is not an unanimous consent. I move you as an original resolution that all nomina- tions by the mayor for members of the Board of Education lie over for one week before action by the City Council. THE CHAIRMAN: That motion will be printed and taken up in its reg- ular order. The question is upon Mr. Taylor’s motion that the next order of busi- ness be that resolution on page 543 be substituted for the first section on page 56, and that the matter be voted on section by section. MR, TAYLOR: May I add to that that it be a special order for the next session? THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state that. As many as favor that sig- nify by saying aye, opposed no. It is carried. The Chair would suggest that we would save time by having the Conven- tion come to order at 7:30 instead of 8 o ’clock. The Convention, if a quorum is furnished, will be open at 7:30 to- morrow evening. MR. POST: Is there no session to- morrow afternoon? THE CHAIRMAN : The next ses- sion is 7:30 tomorrow evening. MR. POST: No session in the after- noon. THE CHAIRMAN: No, sir. MR. RAYMER: I have some amend- ments which I would like to have printed. THE CHAIRMAN: All amendments in the hands of the Secretary will be printed. This session stands adjourned. And the Convention stood adjourned to meet Friday, December 21, 1906, at 7 :30 o ’clock p. m. Secretary. December 20 588 .1906 MEMORANDA. These memoranda indicate the various matters adopted by the Convention. (See page 50 and succeeding pages of the proceedings. I. SCOPE OF PROPOSED LEGIS- LATION. Action on all paragraphs under this section has been deferred. II. CONSOLIDATION. 1. The corporate authorities existing at present for the government of the park systems of Chicago shall be abol- ished and the management of the parks shall become a department of the city government. 2. The administration of the public school system of the city of Chicago and of the Public Library shall con- stitute departments of the city govern- ment. III. THE MAYOR, 1. The charter shall continue sub- stantially the provisions of the pres- ent laws regarding the qualifications and executive functions of the mayor. 2. The charter shall continue the provisions of the present laws regard- ing the relation of the mayor to the city council. Resolved, that it is the sense of this Convention that a clause be inserted in the charter designating a city official who shall act as mayor during the ab- sence or inability of the mayor. First Alternative to 2 b. The mayor shall have a right to a seat in the city council, but shall have no vote. He shall have the right to speak and present messages and intro- duce measures subject * to the general rules of procedure of the city council. Second Alternative to 2: The charter shall continue the pres- ent provisions of the law regarding the relation of the mayor to the city coun- cil, except that he shall not preside at the meetings of the city council, but the city council shall elect its own presiding officer from its members. 3. The veto power of the mayor shall be as now prescribed by law. 4. The term of office of the mayor shall be four years. IV. ELECTIONS. First alternative to 1: Elective city officers shall be nominated under a sys- tem of direct primaries, with appropri- ite provision for independent nomina- tions by petition. 2. The names of all the nominees for each office shall be printed on the ballot under the title of the office for which they are candidates, in alphabeti- cal order, and the designation of the party, if any, to which they belong. The following resolution on the sub- ject of suifrage for women is still pend- ing: 3. The charter shall contain no pro- vision for conferring the right of suf- frage on women. 4. a. The election of all city offi- cers, including those for the municipal court, shall be held in the spring. Pro- vided, however, that judges of the mu- nicipal court shall be elected at a time when no offices other than judicial are to be filled. 5. Candidates and political commit- tees shall be required to make sworn statements of receipts and expenditures of any campaign for nomination or election. December 20 589 1906 Y. CIVIL SERVICE. 1. All departments of the city gov- ernment shall be under an appropriate civil service law. Alternative to 1: a. The civil service law shall apply to the department of public parks. The application of the civil service law to the department of public parks shall not operate in and of itself to dis- charge the present employees. b. The civil service law shall apply to tne municipal court. The Bailiff and Chief Clerk of the Municipal Court shall be subject to re- moval by a majority of the judges of the court, after a hearing, for incompe- tency, inefficiency, malfeasance or mis- feasance in office. The reasons for such removal shall be specified in writing and shall be spread at large upon the records of the court. Section 2 of Civil Service, together with resolution printed in the proceed- ings of December 6, have been referred to the Committee on Municipal Elec- tions, Appointment and Tenure of Office, with instructions to report to the Con- vention within ten days. VI. THE CITY COUNCIL. The charter shall provide for redis- tricting the city into seventy wards, of compact and contiguous territory, and with an equitable distribution of area and population, as soon as possible after the adoption of this charter, one aider- man to be elected from each ward. The city shall thereafter be redis- tricted by the City Council every ten years after the federal census has been taken, but no more than seventy wards shall be made. 2. The compensation of aldermen shall be at the rate of thirty-five hun- dred dollars per annum. The term of office of aldermen shall be four years. The aldermen shall be elected at the same time as the mayor. VII. POWERS OF THE CITY COUN- CIL IN GENERAL. 1. The powers of the city council shall be as now prescribed by law, ex- cept as modified by this charter. The city council shall have all powers of local legislation which can, under the con- stitution, be vested in a municipality; subject to the constitution of the state, the provisions of the charter, and the general laws of the state. 2. The specification of particular powers shall never be construed as a limitation upon the general powers granted by the charter ; it being in- tended to grant and bestow upon the City of Chicago all the powers of mu- nicipal government which can constitu- tionally be delegated to it by the legislature,' and which are not expressly prohibited to it by this charter, or by the constitution of the state; and are not in conflict with any general law of the state. 3. No ordinance shall be passed finally on the day it is introduced, except when approved by an affirmative vote of two- thirds of all the members of the city council. VIII. POWERS OF THE CITY COUN- CIL WITH REGARD TO OFFICES. The office of City Clerk shall cease to be a Charter office, and the City Council shall have power by ordinance to provide for the method of choosing the City Clerk and to provide for the duty of the City Clerk. The City Treasurer shall be ex-officio city collector. 3. The City Council shall have power to investigate any department of the city government and the official acts and conduct any city officer and the making, terms, and performance of December 20 590 1906 any public contract, and for the purpose of ascertaining facts in connection with such investigation to compel the attend- ance of witnesses and the production of material documents and books. IX. POLICE POWER. 1. The police power of the city shall extend to the prevention of crime, to the preservation and advancement of local peace, safety, morals, health, order and comfort, and to the prevention of fraud and extortion wdthin the community, by measures of regulation, licensing, require- ment of bonds, inspection, registration, restraint and prohibition, as well as by the establishment of municipal services. X. REVENUE. GENERAL TAXATION. Section 1. The City Council of the City of Chicago shall annually in the first quarter of its fiscal year, levy a general tax for all city, school, park and library purposes for such year, not ex- ceeding in the aggregate, exclusive of the amounts levied for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness per centum of the assessed value of the* taxable property of said city as assessed and equalized according to law for gen- eral taxation. The said City Council in its annual levy shall specify the re- spective amounts levied for the pay- ment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, the amount levied for general city purposes, amount levied for educational purposes, the amount levied for school building purposes, the amount levied for park purposes and the amount levied for li- brary purposes. The county clerk shall extend upon the collector’s warrant all of such taxes, subject to the limita- tion herein contained, in a single col- umn as the City of Chicago tax. In case the aggregate amount levied, ex- clusive of the amount levied for the ' payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, shall exceed per centum of such assessed value such ex- cess shall be disregarded, and the resi- due only treated as certified for exten- sion. In such case all items in such tax levy except those for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, shall be re- duced pro rata. The city treasurer of the City of Chicago shall keep separate funds in conformity to said tax levy, which funds shall be paid out by him, upon order of the proper authority for the purposes only for which the same were levied. 2. The Board of Education of the City of Chicago shall in January of each year prepare and transmit to the City Council a statement of its receipts and expenditures for the preceding calen- dar year stating therein the sources of its receipts and the several objects and purposes of its expenditures. It shall also prepare and transmit to the City Council in January of each year an es- timate of its expenditures for the cur- rent calendar year, stating therein the several objects and purposes of such expenditures. 3. The Board of Park Commissioners of the City of Chicago shall in January of each year prepare and transmit to the (City Council a statement of its re- ceipts and expenditures for the preceding calendar year stating therein the sources of its receipts and the several objects and purposes of its expendi- tures. It shall also prepare and transmit to the City Council in January of each year an estimate of its expendi- I tures for the current year, stating therein the several objects and purposes of such expenditures. 4. The Board of Library Directors of the City of Chicago shall in January of each year prepare and transmit to the City Council a statement of its receipts and ex- penditures for the preceding calendar December 20 591 1906 year, stating therein the sources of its receipts and the several objects and pur- poses of its expenditures. It shall also prepare and transmit to the City Council in January of each year an estimate of its expenditures for the current year, stating thereing the several objects and purposes of such expenditures. Action on the following propositions h 2 s been deferred pending the report of the special commitee on revenue in- formation. Alternative to 1: a. The limit of the tax rate fixed by the charter shall not apply to taxes levied for school purposes, but taxes shall be levied for school build- ing and educational purposes as now provided by law. b. The limit of the tax rate to be fixed by the charter shall not apply to taxes levied for library purposes, but the City Council shall annually levy for library purposes a tax of not less than one mill and not more than one and one-half mill on the dollar on all taxable property in the city. c. The City Council shall have power to levy annually a tax of two mills on the dollar on all taxable property for a police pension fund. 2. The City Council shall have power to levy a tax of one per cent, additional to the rate fixed by the above resolu- tion for a specific purpose or purposes, provided that such additional tax levy shall have been approved by a major- ity of those voting on the question at a general or special election. 3. a. The City Council shall have power to tax and license, or either, any trade, occupation or business carried on wholly or in part within the city limits, and all persons, firms or corporations owning or using franchises or privi- leges. 4. a. The City Council shall also have power to tax or license all wheeled vehicles used upon the streets of the city, or any particular class of such vehicles. The income therefrom shall be used in the repair and improvement of streets and alleys of the city ex- clusively. Alternative to 5: The City Council shall have power to make local im- provements by special assessment or by special taxation of contiguous prop- erty or otherwise; but not more than 50 per cent, of the cost of repaving any street or alley shall thus be im- posed upon contiguous property, after such street or alley has once been paved, and the expense thereof paid in whole or in part by special assessment or special taxation. XI. INDEBTEDNESS. 1. The charter shall vest in the city the power to assume and incur debts and issue bonds in the manner and to the extent that such power is permitted to be granted by the constitutional amendment of 1904. XII. EXPENDITURES. 1. The provisions of the present city act regarding the annual appropriation ordinanc, the limitation of expendi- tures and contracts by such appropria- tions, the keeping of a separate fund for each appropriation, and the require- ment of warrants for payments, shall be substantially embodied in the charter. XIII. PROPERTY. 1. The city may acquire property by purchase or condemnation for any pur- pose for which it may exercise the power of taxation. The following paragraph together with all substitutes and amendments thereto as printed in the proceedings of December 14, 190J5, have been re-re- December 20 592 1906 ferred to the Committee on Rules, Pro- cedure and General Plan. The com- mittee report will be found under “Res- olutions. ’ ’ 2. The city may so acquire property outside of as well as within the city lim- its for any municipal purpose. XIY. CONTRACTS. 1. Municipal services may be per- formed and municipal works carried out by the city directly or by means of con- tract. XY. STREETS AND PUBLIC PLACES. All private temporary users of space above or below the level of streets, al- leys or other public places shall pay compensation to the city according to some definite scale to be fixed by gen- eral ordinance. This provision shall not apply to grants for public utilities. XYI. PUBLIC UTILITIES. 1. The provisions of the Mueller law and the limitations contained therein (including the twenty-year limit on franchises), except as herein otherwise provided, shall be extended to all in- tramural railways, subways, telephone, telegraph, gas, electric lighting and power plants, and other local public utility w'orks operated in, over, under or upon the streets and public places of the city, also to docks, wharves and their necessary appurtenances. 2. The present powers regarding water works and water supply shall be con- tinued. 3. Any consent granted by the city for the private operation of public util- ity works shall be made subject to the continuing exercise of the city’s street and police powers concerning the struc- ture or works permitted, whether re- served in the grant or not. Alternative to 4 : Such consent hereafter granted, shall further be subject to the power of the l city, whether expressly reserved in the grant or not, to make reasonable regu- lations of the charges to be made in the operation of such public utilities. The city shall have no power to grant away or limit the subsequent exercise of this right, except that the question of rea- sonableness of any such regulation shall always be determined with due regard to the provisions and limitations of the grant under which such public utility is being operated. 5. Such consent shall further be sub- ject to the right of the city to require adequate service and reasonable exten- sions at all times. No city officer or employe shall di- rectly or indirectly ask for, demand or accept for his own use, or for the use of another, any free pass, frank, gratui- ty, gratuitous service, or discrimina- tion from any person or corporation holding or using any franchise, privi- lege or license granted by the city. But this prohibition shall not ex- tend to the furnishing of free transpor- tation to members of the police and fire departments while on duty. The charter shall contain appropriate provisions for the enforcement of this prohibition. The following proposition as offered by Mr. Snow (and amended from the floor by Messrs. Rosenthal and Shepard) is still pending. Amend proposition 1, Section 16, Pub- lic Utilities, by adding the following: Provided that when the city shall own and operate a public utility then and in such case the city shall keep separate accounts for each public utility, and that the income from each service shall be used solely for the benefit of that utility exactly as though it were an independent business enterprise; and reasonable sinking funds, requirements for improvements or extensions, the price of or charge for the service ren- December 20 593 1906 dered or commodity furnished by such utility shall be lowered, to the end that the patrons of such utility shall direct- ly secure the greatest benefit of the city's ownership thereof, and no such, utility shall be so operated as to render its charge for service an indirect form of taxation. XVII. PARKS, BOULEVARDS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS. 1. The management of the parks and parkways and small parks, and of any forest preserve or outer belt park sys- tem shall be vested in a board of park commissioners consisting of nine mem- ber who shall be appointed by the mayor of the City of Chicago — three from the West Side, three from the South Side and three from the North Side; three for a term of two years, three for a term of four years, and three for a term of six years, their successors to be ap- pointed for a term of six years. Any vacancy which may occur shall be filled by appointment of the mayor, for the unexpired term. No appointment, how- ever, shall be acted upon until at a subsequent meeting of the City Coun- cil. The park commissioners shall be ap- pointed by the mayor, with the consent of two-thirds of the members of the City Council. The following paragraph was de- ferred, for consideration together with the subject of Revenue. 2. Taxes may be levied and bonds is- sued for park purposes by the City Council only upon the request of the park board; and park funds shall be paid out only upon the order of the park board. XVITI. EDUCATION. The management of the public school system of the city shall be vested in a board of education of members to be appointed by the mayor, with the approval of a majority of the City Council. The following substitute for all mat- ters under the subject of Education is still pending: I. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCA- TION. The City of Chicago shall constitute one school district. The public school system of the city shall be under the management and control of a depart- ment of education at the head of which there shall be a Board of Education, and no power by this charter vested in the Board of Education or in any officer of the department shall be exercised by the City Council except as by this char- ter otherwise provided. II. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION. The Board of Education shall consist of fifteen members who shall be ap- pointed by the mayor of the city by and with the approval of two-thirds of the City Council at a meeting subsequent to that at which they shall have been nominated. They shall serve for a term of four years, except that on the first appoint- ment of the board three members shall be chosen for one year, four for two years, four for three years, and four for four years, and annually thereafter members shall be appointed to suc- ceed those whose terms expire. The members of the Board of Educa- tion shall serve without compensation. To be eligible for appointment to the board a per|on shall be at least thirty years of age and a resident and citizen of the United States and of the City of Chicago for at least five years im- mediately preceding the appointment. III. SCHOOL PROPERTY. The charter shall re-enact in sub- stance the provisions of the existing law regarding the acquisition, tenure, and disposition of property for school December 20 594 1906 purposes, but no real estate shall be leased for a term longer than five years, nor shall the terms of any existing lease be altered without the concurrence of the City Council. IV. POWERS AND ADMINISTRA- TIVE DUTIES OF THE BOARD. In addition to the powers now vested in it by law, the board of education shall have power to establish as well as maintain schools of all grades and kinds, including normal schools, schools for defectives and delinquents, schools for the blind, the deaf and the crip- pled, schools or classes in manual train- ing, constructional and avocational teach- ing, domestic arts and physical culture, extension schools and lecture courses, and all other educational institutions and facilities. It shall have the power to co-operate with the juvenile court and to make ar- rangements with the public and other libraries and museums for the purpose of extending the privileges of the pub- lic library and museums to the attend- ants of schools and the public in the neighborhood of the schools. The board of education shall have the power to fix the school age of pupils, which in kindergartens shall not be under four years and in grade schools shall not be under six years. V. REVENUE. The charter shall preserve the provi- sions of the present law regarding the levy and collection of taxes for school purposes, except that it shall not em- body the limitation of the power to support schools to the period of nine months of the year. The provisions of the present law re- garding the care and custody of school funds shall be re-enacted. The board of education shall have power by and with the concurrence of the City Council to issue bonds to raise money for purchasing school sites and for the erection of school buildings, and provision shall be made for the pay- ment of such bonds out of the school building tax. VI. EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF THE BOARD. Rules of the board of education shall be enacted or changed, money appro- priated or expended, salaries fixed or changed, courses of instruction and text- books adopted or changed (subject to additional provisions hereinafter con- tained), only at regular meetings of the board of education, and by a vote of the majority of the full membership of the board of education, and upon such propositions, and upon all propositions requiring for their adoption at least a majority of all the members of the board, the ayes and nays be taken and recorded. VII. OFFICERS. The board .of education shall annual- ly choose one of its members as presi- dent, and one as vice-president of the board. The board shall appoint as ex- ecutive officers a superintendent of schools and a business manager, and may also appoint or provide for the ap- pointment of such other officers and employes as it may deem necessary, and shall, subject to the provisions of this charter prescribe their duties, compen- sations and terms of office, but the term of office of the superintendent of schools and 'of the business manager shall not be less than four years. And the sal- ary of no otficer shall be lowered dur- ing his term of office. The requirement that an officer of the city shall at the time of his appoint- ment be a resident of the city, shall not apply to the superintendent of schools. The appointment and removal of the superintendent of schools, and a busi- ness manager, and of such other princi- pal officers directly appointed by the board, as the board may by general or- dinance designate, shall not be subject December 20 595 1906 to the civil service law, but they shall be removable only for cause, by a vote of not less than two-thirds of all the members of the board, upon written charges to be heard by the board on due notice to the officers charged therewith, but pending the hearing of the charges, such officers may by two-thirds vote be suspended by the board. VIII. SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS. (1.) The superintendent of schools shall have a seat in the board of educa- tion, but no vote. (2.) Appointments, promotions and transfers of teachers, principals and other educational and attendance officers shall be made, and text-books and educational apparatus shall be in- troduced by the board of education up- on the recommendation of the superin- tendent, but upon his failure to make such a recommendation within a reason- able time after demand, the board may make appointments, promotions and transfers, and adopt text-books and edu- cational apparatus by a two-thirds vote of all its members, • (3.) He shall be consulted as to loca- tion and plans of school buildings and as to plans and specifications for educa- tional supplies. (4.) Text-books and apparatus once adopted shall not be changed within four years after their adoption, except upon vote of not less than two-thirds of all the members of the board of educa- tion. (5.) The superintendent of schools shall nominate for appointment by the ' board of education, assistant and dis- trict superintendents and principals of schools, and shall have power, with the consent of the board, to remove them upon complaint and for cause. IX. THE BUSINESS MANAGER. The business manager shall have the general care and supervision of the property and the business matters of the department of education. He shall with the concurrence of the board of education appoint his subordi- nate officers and employes, among whom there shall be a trained architect and a trained engineer. In matters affecting the general poli- cy of his administration he shall be subject to the direction of the board. X. APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS, ETC. (1.) Appointments, promotions and transfers of teachers shall be made for merit only, and after satisfactory ser- vice for a probationary period of three years, appointments of teachers and principals shall become permanent, sub- ject to removal for cause upon written charges, but the board need not retain in service more principals or teachers than the needs of the schools require. (2.) The standing of teachers for appointment and promotion shall be en- trusted to a bord to be constituted by the board of education, of which the su- perintendent of schools shall be the head. XI. COMPULSORY EDUCATION. The maximum age of compulsory school attendance shall be increased from fourteen to sixteen. But the children between the ages of fourteen years and sixteen shall not be required to attend school for such time during said years as they may be in good faith engaged in regular employment not less than five hours daily for not less than five days in each week. XTI. PENSIONS. The Board of Education may, and with the co-operation and consent of the City Council, establish a permanent pen- sion system for teachers, principals and other employes of the Board of Educa- tion. It may be maintained in part from the public funds to be provided by the city, and in part by voluntary, fixed and proportionate contributions, to be December 20 596 1906 retained from the salaries of teachers and principals. The pension system, as now administered, shall continue until the same is organized for administra- tion under and by virtue of the provi- sions hereof. XIII. REPORT AND EXAMINA- TION OF ACCOUNTS. The mayor shall, as often as yearly, and may as often as semi-annually ap- point certified public accountants, to ex- amine and audit the accounts of the Board of Education, and the report thereof, together with any recommenda- tion of such accountants, as to change in the business methods of the board, or of any of its departments, officers, or employes, shall be made to the mayor and to the Board of Education, and be spread upon the records of the latter. The expenses of such audit shall be paid by the board. BY MR. RAYMER: Amend Section 2 by inserting in the second line the word “nine” instead of the word “fifteen.” And in line 3, of the second clause of Section 2 by inserting the word “one” instead of the word “three.” And in line 4, of the same clause, by inserting the word “two-” instead of the word “four.” And in line 5, of the same clause, by inserting the word “three” instead of the first word “four.” And in line 5, of the same clause, by inserting the word “three” instead of the second word “four.” BY. MR. SHEPARD: All nominations of members of Board of Education by the mayor shall lie over at least one week before action for confirmation or rejection thereon by the City Council. BY MR. RITTER: The charter shall provide that no po- lice station, fire engine house or patrol barn shall hereafter be built within 400 feet of any school building. XIX. LIBRARY. 1. The management of the public library shall be vested in a board of nine library directors, constituted as at present, and with the present powers and duties, except as herein otherwise provided. 2. The term of office of members of the library board shall be six years, three retiring every two years. 3. The library board may establish branch libraries and reading rooms, sub- ject to the approval of the City Coun- cil. XX. PENAL, CHARITABLE AND REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS. 1. The charter shall grant to the city, in addition to the powers which it has now: a. Authority to maintain alms- houses. b. Authority to maintain free lodg- ing houses, and free employment bu- reaus in connection therewith. c. Authority to maintain creches for infants. d. Authority to maintain training schools for dependent and indigent children. 2. The city shall have the power to contract with the county of Cook or otherwise provide for the detentions, housings and care of indigent persons, prisoners, or dependent or delinquent children. This section shall contain a clause that the City of Chicago can contract with the county of Cook for the erec- tion and maintenance of a Juvenile Court building. XXI. INITIATIVE AND REFEREN- DUM. The charter shall provide that any or- December 20 597 1906 dinanee granting any franchise or the use of any street or alley or space below as well as above the level of the sur- face of the streets, alleys and other public places for any public utility, shall not go into effect until sixty (60) days after the passage thereof, and if within that time twenty (20) per cent, of the voters of the city petition for the submission of such ordinance to popular vote at the next succeeding general or special election, such ordinance shall not go into effect until and unless at such election it shall have been ap- proved by a majority of the voters vot- ing upon the question. XXII. RELATION OF THE CHAR- TER TO OTHER LAWS, AND AMENDMENTS TO CHARTER. The following section has been re- ferred to the LAW COMMITTEE for an opinion as to its constitutionality. 1. Any act o{ the general assembly that shall be passed after the adoption of this charter relating to the govern- ment or the affairs of the cities of the state or of cities containing a stated number of inhabitants or over shall be construed as not applying to the City of Chicago. 2. The charter shall re-enact the pro- visions (not inconsistent with these res- olutions) of the existing laws applicable to the government of the City of Chi- cago, and shall vest in the City Council power to amend such of these provisions as the charter may specify. The following sections have been re- ferred to the LAW COMMITTEE for an opinion as to their constitutionality: 3. The City Council shall have power to amend any part of this charter with the approval of three-fifths of those voting at the proposed change at any election, provided that the tax rate established by this charter shall not be increased nor the twenty-year limit on franchise be altered [extended], nor the municipal court act amended, nor any provision be made for the exercise of any power not strictly local or munici- pal in its character. 4. The charter shall make provision for submission to popular vote of amendments to the charter, proposed by a petition of per cent, of the voters of the city, such proposed amendments to become part of the charter when ap- proved by a majority of the votes cast at the election (or: upon the question). Provided, that in this manner the tax rate established by this charter shall not be increased, nor the twenty-year limit on franchises be altered, nor the municipal court act amended, nor any provision be made for the exercise of any power not strictly local or munici- pal in its character. 5. Nothing in this act shall be con- strued to modify, impair or affect or to con/er upon the City Council power to pass any ordinance modifying, impair- ing or conflicting with the provisions of Section 18 of an act entitled “An act to provide for the annexation of cities, incorporated towns and villages or parts of same to cities, incorporated towns and villages’ ’ approved April 25th, 1889. December 20 598 1906 Resolutions offered from the floor of the Convention, but not acted upon. BY. MR. SHEPARD: Resolved, That in any act providing for the formation and disbursement of the police pension fund the following provision be incorporated: That the members of the police de- partment to be included in the bene- fits of such pension fund shall be as follows: The General Superintendent of Po- lice, Assistant General Superintendent of Police, Inspectors, Captains, Lieu- tenants, Sergeants, Patrolmen, Patrol Drivers, Superintendent of Horses, Su- perintendent of Construction, Superin- tendent Bureau of Identification, As- sistant Superintendent Bureau of Iden- tification, Secretary of the Police De- partment, Private Secretary to the Gen- eral Superintendent of Police, Police Custodian Stolen Property, Chief Clerk Secretary’s office, Clerk in Secretary’s office, Chief Clerk in Detective Bu- reau, Chief Operator, Assistant Chief Operator, Operators, Drillmaster, Chief Matron, Matrons, Feed Inspector, De- partment Printer, Vehicle Inspectors, Photographer, Assistant Photographer, Stenographers, Supply Drivers, Finger Print Expert and such other mem- bers as may hereafter be provided for by ordinance. BY MR. BENNETT: Resolved, that the present laws re- lating to firemen’s pensions be retained and included in the charter. BY MESSRS WERNO AND ROSEN- THAL: Chapter 7, section 1, alternative 1. In addition to all the legislative powers now conferred upon it by the general cities and villages act and the amendments thereof, the charter shall vest in the city council the power to regulate the legal observance of the weekly day of rest, commonly called Sunday; and the sale of liquors by bona fide athletic, charitable, edu- cational, fraternal, musical and social associations, corporations and societies at social gatherings, or entertainments conducted or held by them only; and in general all powers* of local legisla- tion which may under the constitution be vested in a municipality. BY MR. BROWN: Permission shall not be given to any person to retail any goods, fruit or vegetables from a wagon or other vehicl-. BY MR. SNOW: Amend proposition 1, Section 16, Pub- lic Utilities, by striking out all after the word “city” in line 11, and insert- ing in lieu thereof the following: “also to docks and wharves.” BY MR. TAYLOR: A permanent educational commission of advisory capacity shall be appointed by the mayor with the approval of the council, to consist of seventeen mem- bers, who shall serve without compensa- tion, including the superintendent of December 20 599 1906 the public schools and the librarian of the public library, who shall be 'mem- bers ex officio. Each other member shall hold office until another person is ap- pointed to succeed him. It shall be the function of the educa- tional commission to tender advice and recommendations regarding the public school system of the city to correlate the educational forces of the city and to prevent unnecessary duplication of ac- tivities by exercising their influence to- word co-ordinating the various educa- tional and scientific institutions of the city. BY MB. LATHROP: Amend Section 1, of XYI, by adding the following words: Provided, However, that the city shall not have power to operate such public utility works by virtue of any- thing in this section contained. BY MR. SHEDD: Resolved, That in cases where a po- lice officer, in the actual discharge of his duty, is charged with an offense, such as murder, manslaughter, or other serious charge, or charges, that the Common Council shall appropriate a sufficient fund for attorney’s fees to the end that such officer shall be prop- erly represented in court, and the truth of said allegations brought out. BY MR. VOPICKA: RESOLVED: That the City of Chi- cago te given power in condemnation proceedings to make the assessments for benefits payable in such number of , annual installments as the City Coun- oil shall by ordinance determine, not j to exceed twenty in number, and to | issue bonds for the anticipation of such assessments payable out of the pro- ceeds of the collection thereof, and to sell such bonds at not less than par, for the creation of a special fund to be used in the payment of the awards for property taken or damaged through such condemnation proceedings. BY MR. VOPICKA: Resolved: That the City of Chicago shall have power to appropriate and set aside out of the moneys received through general taxation or from mis- cellaneous sources, as a special fund to be used only for the repair or re- pavement of such streets as have been paved by special assessment since July 1, 1901, and such streets as shall here- after be so paved. BY MR. VOPICKA: Resolved: That the City of Chicago shall have power to create a special fund to be used for the purpose of guaranteeing the prompt payment at maturity of all special assessment bonds of the City of Chicago issued since January 1, 1903. BY MR. VOPICKA: Resolved: That the City of Chicago shall have power to levy assessments for improvements according to the pres- ent Special Assessment law with the lollowing amendment: In cases where the amount of an assessment for widening or opening of a street or streets exceeds the sum of $500,000, then the assessment is to be •livided in the following manner: 10 per cent, of the amount to be levied on the property facing the streets where the improvement is made and 90 per cent, of the assessment to be levied pro rata on all the real estate property in Chicago. Report of Committee on Rules, Pro- cedure and General Plan — B. A. Eck- hart, Chairman. CHICAGO CHARTER CONVENTION, Gentlemen: Your committee on December 20 600 1906 Kules, Procedure and General Plan, to whom were referred the following res- olutions which were introduced for consideration at the meeting of Decem- ber 14th, 1906, XIII. PROPERTY. 2. The city may so acquire property outside of as well as within the city limits for any municipal purpose. Also an amendment offered by Mr. Shanahan: * * * that the city may acquire property by purchase outside as well as within the city limits for any mu- nicipal purpose, and not have the right to condemn outside property. Also an amendment offered by Mr. Brown: The city may acquire property out- side of the city, or purchase and con- demn property for municipal purposes within the city. Also an amendment offered by Mr. B. A. Eckhart: The city may acquire property out- side as well as within the city limits, either by purchase or condemnation, for park and boulevard purposes. would respectfully report that the com- mittee has considered the subject-mat- ter, and recqmmends the adoption of the following: The city may acquire by purchase outside as well as within the city limits for any municipal purpose, and may acquire property outside of the city limits by purchase or condemnation for park, boulevard or forest preserve pur- poses. Respectfully submitted, B. A. ECKHART, Chairman. BY MR. PENDARYIS: Resolved, That the charter shall con- tain a provision preserving the integ- rity of prohibition districts established by ordinance of the city, and providing that the City Council shall have no power to modify or abolish any such prohibition district until the proposi- tion to so modify or abolish any such district shall, upon a petition of not less than 20 per cent, of the legal voters then residing within any such district, be submitted to and be ap- proved by a majority of all the legal voters residing within such prohibition district. SPECIAL ORDERS SECTION XVII. — Education, (Friday, December 21, at 7:30 o’clock p. m.) PARAGRAPH 3. — Suffrage, at page 52. (To be taken up immediately after the disposition of the subject of Education.) CORRECTIONS. MR. JONES: Page 277, first column, lines 20 and 21, change “without” to “with.” Page 286, second column, line 38, change “should” to “would,” and line 39, after “and so forth” in- sert “if this Convention so votes.” Page 276, line 26, after “would” in- sert “not.” Page 356, first column, line 34, change “all” to “many of.” December 20 601 1906 RESOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO AMENDMENT OF STATE CONSTITUTION Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Illinois, the Senate concurring there: in That there shall be submitted to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection at the next election of members of the General Assem- bly, a proposition to amend the Constitution of this State as follows: Resolved, That Article IV of the Constitution of this State be amended by ading thereto a section to be numbered and known as Section 34, and reading as follows, to-wit: Section 34. The General Assembly shall have power, subject to the condi- tions and limitations hereinafter contained to pass any law (local, special or general) providing a scheme or charter of local municipal government for thei territory now or hereafter embraced within the limits of the City of Chicago. The law or laws so passed may provide for consolidating (in whole or in part) in the municipal government of the City of Chicago, the powers now vested in the city, board of education, township, park and other local governments and authorities having jurisdiction confined to or within said territory, or any part thereof, and for the assumption by the City of Chicago of the debts and liabilities (in whole or in part) of the governments or corporate authorities whose functions within its territory shall be vested in said City of Chicago and may^ authorize said city in the event of its becoming liable for the indebtedness of two or more of the existing municipal corporations lying wholly within said City of Chicago, to become indebted to an amount (including its existing indebtedness and the indebtedness of all municipal corporations lying wholly within the limits of said city, and said city’s proportionate share of the indebtedness of said county and sanitary district which share shall be determined in such manner as the General Assembly shall prescribe) in its aggregate not exceeding five per centum of the full value of the taxable property within its limits as ascertained by the last assessment either for State or municipal purposes previous to the incurring of such indebtedness (but no new bonded indebtedness, other than for refunding purposes, shall be incurred until the proposition therefor shall be consented to by a majority of the legal voters of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special) ; and may provide for the assessment of property and the levy and collection of taxes within said city for corporate purposes in accordance with the principles of equality and uniformity prescribed by this Constitution; and may abolish all offices, the functions of which shall be ofherwise provided for; and may provide for the annexation of territory to or disconnection of territory from said City of Chicago by the consent of a majority of the legal voters (voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special) of the said city and of a majority of the voters of such territory, voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special, and in case the General Assembly shall create municipal courts in the City of Chicago it may abolish the offices of Justices of the Peace, Police Magistrates and Constables in and for the territory within said city and may limit the jursidiction of Justices of the Peace in the territory of said County of Cook outside of said city to that territory, and in such case the jurisdiction and practice of said municipal courts shall be such as the General Assembly shall prescribe; and the December 20 602 1906 General Assembly may pass all laws which it may deem requisite to effectually provide a complete system of local municipal government in and for the City of Chicago. No law based upon this amendment to the Constitution, affecting the municipal government of the City of Chicago, shall take effect until such law shall be con- sented to by a majority of the legal voters of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special; and no local or special law based upon this amendment affecting specially any part of the City of Chicago shall take effect until consented to by a majority of the legal voters of such part of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special. Nothing in this section contained shall be construed to repeal, amend or affect Section Four (4) of Article XI of the Constitution of this State. Adopted by the House, April 22, 1903. Concurred in by the Senate, April 22, 1903. PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER FRIDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1906 (Ehirtujii (Uljartrr (Unuurnttmt Convened, December 12 , 1905 Headquarters 171 WASHINGTON STREET TELEPHONE MAIN 4877 Milton J, Foreman Chairman Alexander H. Revell, . Vice-Chairman M. L. McKinley Secretary Henry Barrett Chamberlin. asst. Secy ' December 21 605 1906 PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Regular Meeting, Friday, December 21, 1906 7:30 O’clock P. M., in the City Council Chamber OFFICIAL RECORD Published by authority of the Chicago Charter Convention . THE CHAIRMAN: The Convention will be in order. The Secretary will call the roll. Present — Foreman, Chairman, and Beebe, Beilfuss, Bennett, Brosseau, Burke, Church, Crilly, Ritter, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eid- mann, Erickson, Gansbergen, Guerin, Hill, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Line- han, Lundberg, MacMillan, McCor- mick, McGoorty, McKinley, Merriam, O’Donnell, Owens, Paullin r Pendarvis, Post, Powers, Raymer, Revell, Robins, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Sunny, Taylor, Vopicka, Werno, White, Wilkins, Zimmer — 49. Absent — Badenoch, Baker, Brown, Carey, Clettenberg, Cole, Dever, Dixon, T. J., Fisher, Fitzpatrick, Graham, Haas, Harrison, Hoyne, Hunter, Oehne, Patterson, Rainey, Rinaker, Sethness, Swift, Thompson, Walker, Wilson, Young — 25. THE CHAIRMAN: Quorum present. Are there any corrections or amend- ments to the minutes? If so, they will be handed to the Secretary, and, as cor- rected, the minutes will stand approved as the minutes of the last meeting. The Secretary will read on page 543 the first paragraph of the substitute offered by Mr. Taylor. THE SECRETARY: Also found on page 593. (Reads first paragraph.) MR. TAYLOR: I move its aroption. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion. All those in favor of the adoption of No. 1 will sig- nify the same by saying aye; opposed, no. It is carried. No. 2. The Secretary read No. 2 as it ap- pears in the proceedings at page 593. THE CHAIRMAN: Two may be passed, because part of it was passed on at the last meeting. The Secretary will pass it and then pass on to the last section of it. MR. LATHROP: I would suggest that the vote be taken first upon the first part and then afterwards on the second part. December 21 606 1906 THE CHAIRMAN : The Secretary will read the amendment. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Lath- rop: ‘‘Amend Section 2 of Department of Education by substitutiong the word ‘nine’ for the word ‘ fifteen ’ before the word members in the second line. ‘ ‘ And the second paragraph to read as follows: ‘ ‘ They shall serve for a term of six years, except that on the first appoint- ment of the board three members shall be chosen for two years, three for four years, and three for six years, and every appointed to succeed those whose terms appointed to succeed those whose terms expire. ’ ’ THE CHAIRMAN: The first vote will be taken upon the second section, and then the Secretary will read Mr. Raymer’s amendment. The Secretary read Mr. Raymer’s amendment as printed. MR. RAYMER: The amendment that I have submitted simply provides for nine members in the Board of Edu- cation and the amendments following provide for the manner of their appoint- ment; that is, the periods of their ap- pointment — the number that each will serve until the period of four years has been covered. I move the adoption of the amend- ment, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: The first vote will be upon the amendment changing the number from fifteen to nine. The Secretary will read the amend- ment by Mr. Lathrop. MR. LATHROP: Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I suggest corresponds with the first part of that of Mr. Ray- mer. The other is made to conform with the terms which we have decided upon in the Convention for the Park Board and for the Library Board, and my reason for suggesting it is that it is desirable to have as much continuity in the service of the administration or all these departments as possible. By making the term six years there is no possibility of changing the board un- der any one administration except pos- sibly at the very end of the adminis- tration for four years; and I am con- vinced, as I fancy all of us are, that continuity is the most valuable feature of the administration. It has been the secret — and I venture to say Mr. Crilly will confirm me in that — of the success- ful management of the South Park sys- tem. There never has been in the his- tory of the South Park a complete change of the board, which has, how- ever, occurred in the other park sys- tems. If I might say a word in regard to the appointment of nine, it seems to me that on one point we can all agree, and that is that we desire the greatest pos- sible , efficiency in the management of the schools and school property. Another point on which, I think, we are all agreed is that small boards are more efficient than large ones. It has been decided by unanimous vote that twenty-one is too large and unwieldy a board, and there was nearly unani- mous agreement, I must admit, to sub- stitute fifteen; but I submit to this Convention that a board of fifteen is still large and unwieldy. A board of nine members, in my judgment, is as large as is practically consistent with the efficient administration of the schools and school property, or of any other property belonging to a great and complicated institution. I, therefore, submit that it is in the interest of the most efficient management of the schools that we should vote in favor of the resolution to make the number nine instead of fifteen. MR. POST: Mr. President, I rise to move that the question of the number of the Board of Education, the number of members, shall be postponed until we have determined the function of the Board of Education. If the Board December 21 607 1906 of Education is to be a deliberate body at all, nine is not enough. It would be probably insufficient. We do not need a small body in that case, and ought not to have a small body in that case; but if your Board of Education is to have merely perfunctory powers, or hardly more than perfunctory powers, as is provided in the rest of the re- port, then not only are fifteen too many, but nine are too many. In that case it should be reduced to nine, and would, I believe, be in harmony with the policy of the report as a whole. For if the board is to have practically no greater power than to say “me too” to the superintendent, and “me too” to the other side, to the business manage- ment, than the fewer we have the bet- ter. We should have in that case, I think, about three, who might meet once and nominate the superintendent and business manager, and then adjourn subject to the call of two of them, be- cause the two of them alone would have the power to change the general policy, and no power whatever to remove the business manager or the superintendent, unless they could convict him, virtually, of some offense. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I move that the question of the number of the Board of Education shall be postponed until we have determined the question of the functions of the board. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion MR. GANSBERGEN: What Mr. Post has said about the Board of Education would apply to the park boards of the city. In my opinion, the Board of Edu- cation strikes so close to our own homes and our own heartstrings; more than any other function in this great com- munity; and I think that second to that are the park boards, which in themselves are educational functions, and, there- fore, we ought to have the very best park systems throughout the city. We have had in the past seven park commissioners on the North Side. I think an equal amount on the West Side, and perhaps an equal amount on this South Side. The Park Committee, when they considered the functions of the park details, reduced the number to nine for the entire city. I do not doubt, in my own mind, but what, for instance, the Board of Education has more property to manage, as Dr. Tay- lor outlined to us the other evening. In business and in the collection and in the management of its functions; but if I had the say to-day to fix the number of the park boards for the entire city, instead of naming the nine members, I would name five. I think the smaller body that you get for this function, the greater concentration of responsibility that you allot, the greater efficiency will you receive for the community. Never in my experience on the park board of seven commissioners, for the past ten years, has there been more than four active members of the board; no more than four active working people of that board, sufficient only for a majority to conduct the business, and sometimes it was absolutely necessary to coax the fourth member to come to a meeting of the board and be present at the meetings to transact business. Therefore, I believe that, for in- stance, in the past arguments made, that if there is a representative body of business men, representatives from the various professions to constitute a Board of Education. I feel that if you have nine — and nine is a great num- ber — nine selected from this entire community, nine efficient men will do more for you, will be a body which will be able to transact more business, five of which will be a majority, and will, in my opinion, be a force that will be able to take care of every question that comes up before the Board of Edu- cation. I feel, sincerely, that fifteen or t.wen- December 21 608 1906 ty is such a number that you cannot ordinarily get a quorum. This Con- vention has been happy in getting such a quorum as it has had, but when it comes to an entire year, the various business men that we have in this com- munity do not find it convenient to come to all of these various meetings. Therefore, I think that the smallest number you get the better efficiency you get and the easier you get a quorum to transact the business, and the better you will be able to concen- trate the responsibility. Therefore, I am in favor of having nine. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon Mr. Post ’s motion before this mat- ter is discussed. Mr. Post moves that the number of the Board of Education be deferred until the sections relating to those functions of the board be dis- posed of. Those in favor of the mo- tion will signify by saying aye; op- posed, no. The motion is lost. MR. POST: Mr. Chairman, I wish a roll call on this motion. THE CHAIRMAN: Sir? MR. POST: I desire a roll call on that motion. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Brosseau, Crilly, Ritter, Gue- rin, O ’Donnell, Owens, Post, Robins, Zimmer — 9. Nays — Beebe, Bennett, Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Erickson, Gansbergen, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Lundberg, McCormick, McGoorty, Mc- Kinley, Merriam, Paullin, Pendarvis, Powers, Raymer, Shanahan, Shedd, She- pard, Smulski, Snow, Sunny, Taylor, Vo- picka, Werno, White, Wilkins — 30. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon Mr. Post’s motion to defer, the ayes are nine and the nays are 30, and the motion is lost. The question recurs upon Mr. Ray- mer ’s amendment. Dr. Guerin. DR. GUERIN : Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment for the fol- lowing reasons: In the first place, if all that is necessary is simply a super- intendent of education and the choice of the district superintendents, or inspec- tors, as I think you might properly call them, to assist him, I do not think any board at all is necessary; because the Council, or the mayor, rather,— the may- or, with the approval of the council, could so easily appoint district superintend- ents; he could appoint — I mean, a gen- eral superintendent, who could appoint district superintendents. But it seems to me there is more than that to be done. Now, we have a cosmopolitan city here, as every one knows; people composed of different elements. They are, in fact,, from all parts of the earth, with differ- ent views on various things. These people should be represented in the sys- tem of education. That, to my mind, is absolutely necessary in order to have things prevail harmoniously. Therefore, it would be necessary that we should have something more than one man to govern the Board of Education. Again, let us understand of what this new system consists. We have here in this city about 253 elementary schools; in addition to that, we have several high schools, I have forgotten about how many ; and normal schools. In these 250 schools there are about 6,000 teach- ers. And also in those 250 schools there are children, as I said before, of the parents of all the different nationalities of the earth, which are too numerous te mention. And each and every one of them has an interest in the public school. It seems to me the closer you bring those people to the public schools the better it will be for the school system. As they understand the system they will like it better, all of them. For that rea- son I think we ought to have a Board of Education, and that it ought to consist of at least fifteen. Then, another thing, as I stated last night, I believe that the Board of Edu- cation should consist of educators as well as of business men. There ought December 21 609 1906 to be enough men on the Board — or wo- men on the Board of Education — to be able to visit at least a portion of the schools and to know what sort of work is being done in the schools, and what is the physical condition of each and every school which they chose to visit. That cannot be done to any advantage by nine men who have so many other duties to perform. There is another matter which is, I think, more important than anything else, from the history of the past. I hold, notwithstanding the view that some people hold in this assemblage, that the school property has been given away in the past. The property that belongs to your children will belong to your grandchildren if it is only saved for them. And who gave it away? The School Board — I don ’t know which one, or when it was done, or how it was done. You look at the question and you will find today that we are not getting more than fifty per cent, of the rents that we should be getting for the school prop- erty. That means that we are losing $100,000 — yes, a million dollars in the course of 99 years. I hold it is much easier to control a board of nine men so that they may not be giving away your property in the future as they have in the past, than it will be to control a board of fifteen men. And that is the principal and great reason. That your boards have been controlled in the past, I have not the slightest doubt. I have watched the Board of Education, more or less, for the last forty years in Chi- cago; and if you look back over the last twenty years you will find, for ex- ample, that leases have been made in such a way that there has been no re- valuation for over ten years. When the end of the first ten years, or of the second ten years came around, what was the trouble? The leases were not satis- factory to the tenant. Why? lie knew very well that the property of Chicago was going up, and he wanted a lease for ninety-nine years, and every — and many agents have got leases for ninety- nine years. Then he will turn round and sell the lease in some instances for a hundred thousand dollars, and it never costs him a penny. This has taken place more than once, and if it went on with a board of twenty-one how much more easily could it go on with a board of nine? Now, then, in other cities I do not know, but I assume that the property of the Board of Education or the prop- erty of the school system is not similar to our property. If your Board of Ed- ucation or your school system was sup- ported by the direct taxes of the people instead of the rents from leased prop- erty, why, I do not know that there would be any objection. I do not know that there would be any objection what- ever to having it put in the hands of one single man to let him choose his assistants. But there is a vital difference. This is a cosmopolitan city. If we were a city of one sort of people here and all thought alike, there would be no objection to having only one man, pro- vided we had the sort of property that we needed. As it is, you want a sufficient number of men on the Board of Education to take care of your property and also to manage your schools, and you ought to have, for another reason, in any case, men on the Board of Education, men who are qualified — yes, men who are qualified as well as any superintendent whom you may select, to know what is going on in the schools, and if you have not, the superintendent can do just as he pleases, and you won’t know anything about it, and you don’t know so very much about it now. And I challenge now, how many men here tonight have visited the public schools within the last five years? What do you know about what your children are being taught? You don’t know any- thing about it, gentlemen. You don’t try December 21 610 1906 to know anything about it. And, fur- thermore, the Board of Education in the past has not tried to know anything about it, and I hold it is the duty of the Board of Education to know some- thing about it, and they should be qual- ified to know something about it. That is one reason why you ought to have more than" nine members on the Board of Education: that is one reason! Now, gentlemen, so far as I am con- cerned, personally, it don ’t make any difference to me. My children have ceased to go to the public schools ; they went there once — except that I have two grandchildren — further than that, I have no direct personal interest in the public schools — except that I am interested like all other citizens that our school chil- dren should be brought up in a proper way — properly educated — and make good citizens of them; that is all. Anothet thing, if you have only nine members, you will have perhaps about four or five to do the work. You have to have at least three committees. You have to have a committee on school man- agement; you have to have committee on buildings and grounds, and you have to have a finance committee. Now, inasmuch as men are not paid for their services on the Board of Edu- cation, you cannot expect them to give up all their time to the Board of Edu- cation; they have something else to do, and the result will be that, from having nine members, there will be times when there won’t be a quorum, and they can- not do any business; they will postpone business, and the result will be that the Board of Education will be neglected. Therefore, I am in favor of at least fif- teen members of the Board of Educa- tion to conduct the business. MR. J. W. ECKHART: Mr. Chair- man, I think that the smaller number is proper, but the school board of this city has the expenditure of almost half of the money — a little less than half of the money — raised by taxation in this city, and it seems to me that a board that has .the management of the schools of a cosmopolitan city like this, should consist of at least fifteen members/ The fact that it takes a smaller number to have a quorum, the argument used on that line, it seems to me, would be in favor of a larger number, and fifteen members is small enough, it seems to me, to manage the affairs of the schools of this great city. MR. LINEHAN: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, Section 2, as amended by Alderman Raymer, is before the house. The amendment is the insertion of nine instead of fifteen. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MR. LINEHAN : Does that take the whole of Section 2? THE CHAIRMAN: No, that question was divided, and the question before the house is upon the single question as to the number of the members of the board. MR. LINEHAN : It seems to me an important point in connection with that, Mr. Chairman, is, that if you were to reduce the membership, you are going to increase the duties of the members of the Board of Education. Now, if it is possible to offer an amendment, I would like to offer an amendment, in- serting, instead of the two lines, 1 1 The members of the Board of Education shall serve without compensation, ’ ’ the following : ‘ 1 They shall receive a salary of $2,500 per annum.” THE CHAIRMAN: The question has been divided, Mr. Linehan, and the first vote will be upon the number. The ques- tion of compensation follows. MR. LINEHAN: That makes it rath- er difficult, Mr. Chairman, for this rea- son. I would favor the payment of a salary for this small number, and I be- lieve a good many of this convention would feel the same way, but if the number is to be twenty-one, or even fif- teen, it is a question of whether some of us would believe in paying a salary December 21 611 1906 to such a large number. If there are only five on the entire board, it would mean almost an entire abolishment of sub-eommittees, and the entire time of the membership ^ill be taken up in the work of the board, and if that is so, I think it would be a good idea if we started in by paying salaries. Then we would have them as employes, and if necessary, we could give them assistance from the City Council, but if you have them just as temporary members, they would still be open to the charges of being tampered with by the book trust and all these other trusts we hear of. I think the first step is the payment of a good, respectable salary; that will put a man in position where he can support his family and live decently, and attend to his duties in connection with his job. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I am sure I have not any very weighty argu- ments to advance in favor of a board of fifteen, or even a larger board in the City of Chicago, over the number pro- posed in the amendment. I do not think any one has any very weighty arguments, either, for a smaller or larger board. It is very largely a matter of personal considerations and personal experiences. We have some instances, to be sure, throughout the country, of small boards, which those who are in favor of a board of nine might refer to with ad- vantage, possibly, to their side of the argument. The City of Boston has a commission of five. That, however, is rather a recent fad, and while the educa- tional matters of Boston are progress- ing under this small commission, it is very evident that it is not yet deter- mined whether the new educational life which has come into the affairs of the schools of Boston, is due merely to the existence of the small board, or whether it is not more likely due to a certain feeling against the conditions existing in the system of education prevailing in Boston, but no doubt Boston is suc- ceeding under those conditions. But if there is any reason for taking into consideration the policy and rela- tion of the Board of Education to the population of the city, as to size, then you must remember that the City of Boston, with five commissioners, has a population between 500,000 and 600,000, and in the ratio of population, it really 'would follow that Chicago should have a larger board than fifteen. If there is any argument at all in the relation- ship of the board to the population of the city, that would necessarily follow. I would call the attention of the Con- vention to the fact that the City of St. Louis, which, in my judgment, has the best educational charter in the coun- try, up to the present time, working under that charter, is perhaps conducting as successful a system of public schools as are conducted in any city of this na- tion, asi a board of education in a city with a population of between 500,000 and 600,000 — and possibly a less popu- lation than that. If, therefore, we should take into consideration the ques- tion of the relationship of the size of the board and the population of the city then fifteen is none too large for the City of Chicago; in my judgment it is too small. I was personally in favor of the retention, in* view of the large popu- lation of the City of Chicago, of the present number, twenty-one, and I think, although I have forgotten whether the committee was a unit on this matter or not, 1 think that with some of us the question of fifteen was a matter of compromise. Now, I believe, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Convention, that you will make a most serious mistake if you attempt to establish a board of nine mem- bers. I am not one of those who be- lieve for one moment that every nation- ality and every factional section of this city shall have a representative upon the Board of Education, but I do maintain December 21 612 1906 that it will conduce to a certain con- ifidence in your Board of Education, and it will put your Board of Education in a certain vital relation and close touch to the various interests of this city, if you have a board large enough and prop- erly distributed over this city, to come into some vital touch with the City of Chicago, and its educational interests, with which the Board of Education comes in close touch. I believe a board of fifteen in a city of 2,000,000 inhabi- tants is not too large a board; — I believe it is too small; and, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, you ought to take into con- sideration another question: It is un- doubtedly true that if you succeed in the appointment of a board of nine, who are absolutely in every way devoted en- tirely to the best interests of the school system of Chicago, that so far as the expedition of business is concerned, there is no question but what nine mem- bers, under ordinary circumstances, can transact business more rapidly, and gain the proper action necessary for the best interests of the educational system of Chicago, more successfully than a larger board. A larger board, containing a larger variety of opinions, necessarily blocks progress of business, but I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, after some experience with the Board of Education here in Chicago, and having been for several years prior to my coming to the City of Chicago, a member of the school board in an Eastern city, — I want to say to you that in my judgment it is sometimes a little to the advantage of the educational system of a great city, and to the people of a city like Chi- cago, that there is a board with such a variety of opinions that under certain circumstances certain matters often are delayed. There is such a thing, Mr. Chairman, as advancing too rapidly in the trans- action of public business; and what Mr. Linehan said — and which seemed to pro- voke a smile in this Convention — is not beyond our consideration tonight. A board of nine means a majority of five; it means that to enact any legislation that the Board of Education under the charter is permitted to enact, you need only to control five votes on that board. Now, then, let us face the situation as it may be; don’t let’s indulge in any idealism about what the nature of the future boards of education will be; let us admit to ourselves that, in all prob- ability, there may be times when we will have a bad Board of Education, times when we will have venal men on your Board of Education, and if that time should ever arise and the great interests in this city desiring to control the Board of Education, I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, it is easier to control five men than it is to control eight, and it is easier to control eight men than it is to control eleven men. Now, there are interests in this City of Chicago that have tremendous interests not only in the city, but in the nation, that have tremendous interests in con- trolling a majority of the Board of Education in this city, and of any large city. I do not need to mention those interests; some of us know perfectly well that we are merely stating facts when we refer to those things. Now, sir, Mr. Chairman, I believe that there may, at some future time, arise great danger when the great commercial interests, great financial interests are at stake, and when there are organizations conducting such enormous matters of business in connection with school mat- ters, that they can afford to go to al- most any length, and the question of money is absolutely no object to them. It would be entirely to their benefit, pro- viding you happened at any future time, as you may have, sir, a board that is not altogether worthy the confidence of the City of Chicago. You have made a very easy proposition for those inter- ests to control five members. This is perhaps as weighty argument December 21 613 1906 as any can advance in favor of the large board ; they are certainly quite as strong argument as can be advanced against a small board; many good argu- ments cap be advanced in favor of the smaller boards, but the only object I can see in having a smaller board is the expedition of business. A great ad- vantage arises at times because of dif- ference of opinion of twenty-one mem- bers of the Board of Education. But, let me repeat, for the sake of emphasis, there are other times when it is to the advantage of this city that business be not expedited. This city has to thank the larger Board of Education, in my judgment, in many cases, because the difference of opinion of the large board has delayed business matters of great interests, both to the education and fi- nancial side of this proposition, when things might have been done on the im- pulse of the moment with a smaller board, but have been changed or modi- fied largely to the advantage of the fi- nancial interests of the city and the educational interests of this city. I am in favor of at least fifteen; I should prefer the original board of twenty-one. MR. McCORMICK: 1 wish to ask Dr. White a question, and would pre- face my question by saying that I am not asking it in an argumentative mood, but to understand the statement he made. Dr. White said that Boston had a popu- lation of 500,000, Chicago about 2,000,000 and therefore Chicago should have a larger board than Boston. I don ’t see the application of the argument, Dr. White, and I would like to have it ex- plained. MR. WHITE: With regard to the application of the argument, Mr. Chair- man, I thought I made that very plain. It is curious how we think we are pro- ceeding with great lucidity and only succeed in embarrassing our auditors. I said that if the matter was worth con- sidering at all, the relationship of the size of the board — the number of the board to the entire population of the city which it was to serve — then fifteen in relationship to five in the smaller city of Boston was not at all excessive. I really believe there should be some relationship between the population of the city and the size of the board. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll on Mr. Raymer's MR. VOPICKA: Mr. Chairman, after the excellent argument which I have heard from Dr. White, I have very lit- tle to add to what he said before. One thing I want to call the attention of this Convention to, and that is that Chicago has 250 school buildings, and if a person is elected a school trustee his duty is to go and visit the schools. I have always thought it my duty to go and visit the schools, because the superintendent cannot visit the schools. He is busy in his office. The head en- gineer cannot visit the schools because he is in his office — he is too busy. He cannot go out and bring in a correct re- port. And for that reason after we are elected for trustees and after we are elected — imagine yourself in business. You yourself have to do with the whole machinery. Is not that right? For that reason I believe that the larger the board the better it can visit the buildings and the better it will be for the City of Chicago than otherwise. MR, ROBINS: Mr. Chairman MR. CRILLY: I should like THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Robins. MR. ROBINS: I give way to Mr. Crilly. MR. CRILLY: I would favor the fif- teen, but Dr. Guerin made it rest on the matter of leases. What would the sit- uation be if there was only nine, on account of the school funds in regard to property. I think if Dr. Guerin will come and visit me for a little I could convince him he is wrong. I have data of the school leases of this city in re- gard to school property, as compared with other property. I am convinced December 21 614 1906 that the school property is leased as well as any other property in this city. The First National Bank cost $80,000 more than they thought it would, and they never paid a dividend to the stockholders. It takes all of the in- come of that building to pay interest on bonds and the running expenses and the ground rent. Now, that is the case in a number of instances. We speak of the Tribune building. I have no doubt the Tribune building has got some return from the investment, but other people that have buildings ,in this city do not get returns. I have an in- vestment in four modern buildings down town and never got a dollar out of one of them except the Auditorium. There a~e no ground rents compared with the leases that the school board have been making lately. It is a mistake, I say, that the school board is being robbed of the property by the former school boards. That is a mistaken idea. There has been nothing of the kind done. In every instance where they made leases they had all the real estate men come over to the board to make that lease. If there is any man corrupting the Board of Education or any other board he don’t want more than a majority. It takes money. You would not want, in my judgment, a school board that had entire power with the exception of four members to vote for the lease. They could not build such modern buildings as they have done unless they got such rents. Mr. Patterson told me when he made the first lease that on his corner of 72 feet he could not figure out where he could make any money on such a piece of ground, and they were therefore compelled to buy 72 feet ad- joining upon which they made it a val- uable piece of property, although at that time the ordinance of the City of Chicago provided only for a twelve- story building. They got a roof on to the twelve-story building, but the or- dinance was changed at that time so they added five more stories to it THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon the number of the Board of Edu- cation, not upon the school leases. MR. CRILLY: This question is up- on Mr. White’s remarks. I have stated the reasons why I favor fifteen on ac- count that the school board should rep- resent the people in regard to the prop- erty. MR. GUERIN: May I ask a ques- tion — MR. ROBINS: I know it does not seem to be a question of school leases of the property here. I think enough will be said about that in the courts of the county and the state before the matter is over to satisfy everybody in the matter. As to the number of school trustees I have a very definite judg- ment, based upon the little time that I have been able to be quite familiar with the administration of the schools. There is a curious 'idea that seems to be voiced quite generally in this Conven- tion that seems to put the business efficiency of the school board as its su- preme function. I maintained a dif- ferent view, Mr. Chairman, and gentle- men of the Convention. If there is one thing that is more fundamental to the ideas of American institutions, more absolutely holding the heritage of the past and the promise of the future, it is the public school system, and if there is one way better than another to di- vorce the people from sympathy with that interest and to arouse all sorts of questions and possibly foolish criticism it is to have & board of small number, unknown to the people personally, and chosen for business efficiency. If there is one thing the school board needs above any other, it seems to me it is actual knowledge of the school condi- tions; the proper conditions of the in- dividual schools, if you please; their condition in regard to cleanliness and sanitation; and where the school is re- acting through its teaching force upon the people of the city; the ideas of the patrons in regard to the management December 21 615 1906 of the schools; and the possibility by the patrons of the school to see and to talk with somebody who is responsible for their administration. In the little time that I have been a member of the school board I have had more com- plaints, more personal touch from peo- ple who were directly interested on ac- count of their children in one respect or another than in any other, and in all other public relations of any sort that I have ever enjoyed in this city. I had no idea before I be- came a member of the intimacy that ex- isted in that relationship. I had no idea of the number of personal com- plaints. Some were petty, some of them were easily disposed of, but they repre- sented the parents, the mothers or the fathers; they represented the hope in the child, the hope in the family, the hope of the education of the future, and the hope of the home. And I want to say to you that while business effi- ciency is a good thitfg, and I believe some of us would go a long way to get business efficiency, it is not the first thing to think about, and in determin- ing this question upon that view, in my judgment, is a false determination, and will find a reaction in public sentiment that will be its just due. If there is any excuse for a council of a large num- ber it seems to me that it goes quite as definitely in excusing a large number composing the Board of Education even though that large number be a bit un- wieldy in business administration. I wish to say that the fault does not lie with the number of the board. The board should not be administering the business of the Board of Education. It should have able business management on the part of a manager of that busi- ness, if you please. It should not man- age the educational policies — the educa- tional administration, if you please. It should have an able administrator for that side of the work. But the board should be in close and intimate rela- tionship with the different parts of the city, if you please, and the people in the city, so that they might talk with them and interest them; that they might know just what the conditions were and be advised from time to time, if you please, and suggestions from time to time of this able business man- ager and this able administrator. Those conditions, no two men, no mat- ter how able they are, no matter what masters they may be of their depart- ment — those conditions they can never learn of in any other way. We all know how indifferent the aver- age man with large business con- cerns, as these men will be, or large administrative concerns as the superin- tendent of education would be — how indifferent they are to just complaints. Now, a complaint is a complaint, and they are not infrequently without any method. But almost always there is something behind them, and almost al- ways dealing with them directly will remove the cause of the trouble. Some- times they need careful deliberation. I have had occasion in two schools to inquire into and find conditions that were reprehensible that have been passed over by the administrative au- thorities of the school, not because they were poor authorities, incompetent or ignorant, not because they were not in- terested in the welfare of the schools, but because they took superficial views of it instead of a real view, and passed judgments on the facts that came to them that proved to be erroneous. And that judgment has been reversed upon inquiry. It would not have been re- versed unless it had been taken up with the consent of the authorities di- rectly by a trustee who had the right to take it up, and who was ready to do so. Now, of course, it lies in the power of this Convention to deal with this mat- ter of nine or fifteen as it pleases. All I wish to do is to make this statement, and suggest to you that the relation- ship of the board to the people is a very December 21 616 1906 important thing. I suggest to you that nine able business men in their offices, where a man or woman has some diffi- culty to get up into an elevator and break by three or four office boys to get into communication with that business man, will result, in my judgment, in a condition of feeling among the people in regard to the schools that is not a condition that will be helpful for the best interests of our city and our schools. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, will you permit me to add that the vote was unanimous for the number of fifteen, and that the emphasis was not placed exclusively upon business efficiency, but upon administrative efficiency, includ- ing educational administration as well as financial administration. MR. REYELL: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to make any extended remarks on this matter; I simply wish to say that my experience on the Board of Ed- ucation was that it would be almost im- possible for nine members to attend to all of the details necessary to the proper handling of the affairs of the school system of the City of Chicago. It is entirely different from a business or- ganization. There are so many differ- ent parts of the work to look after, and committees must be appointed to look after them, and when I was on the board committees were appointed to look after them, and they did look after them. It was a common thing for the members of the board every month to go out on expeditions throughout the city to visit the schools. I made it a rule to do that about nine times a year, with one of the assistant super- intendents, and I believe it would be a serious mistake to reduce the num- ber recommended by the committee. MR. RITTER: Mr. Chairman, there is one point. It sometimes gives a per- son a little advantage to have personal information, and as one who has had a little to do with the schools during the last year and a half I would like to speak from the record, if you please. That is to say, to call your attention to one thing which you need not take my word for, but which you can sub- stantiate by the stenographer’s reports of the committee meetings, namely: That at every meeting of the Buildings and Ground Committee, and I believe every meeting of the School Manage- ment Committee, members of the board would come in and make recommenda- tions for improvements based upon their visits to the school buildings. I think the advantage of that is so great that by no means should the number of members be reduced to a point where the schools could not be visited by the members of the board. The record will bear that out, that improvements have been made following visits by the mem- bers of the Board of Education to the schools; and if nothing else, I believe that the advantage of that one point would be enough to defeat the pend- ing motion to divide this large city into practically nine districts, or, rather, to turn the inspection over to only nine people. We have in Chicago 260 and some odd schools with a Board of Education of volunteers. You can readily' see that it is a hard task on the committees and various members to get around to those schools. I know of one of the finest schools in the country, that would not be so in the present state, except for the visits of certain members of the board; I know that schools on the Northwest side would be in better condition than they are if they were visited by the members from that district. The num- ber of schools is increasing all the time; and I am sure that fifteen is too small, if anything. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is on Alderman Raymer’s amendment. MR. RAYMER: I desire to say a word or two; I don’t desire to take up the time of the Convention. Mr. Ritter, who has just spoken, said December 21 617 1906 that it sometimes gave a man an advan- tage to know something about the sub- ject on which he was talking. He said that he was speaking from the record. I have not any doubt but what that is absolutely true; I think the record, however, will show, that, on numerous occasions, the school board had about resolved itself into a debating society rather than a consideration of the busi- ness propositions with which it had to deal. MR. RITTER: May I ask the aider- man a question? MR. RAYMER: You may. MR. RITTER: You mean the record of the Board of Education or the rec- ords of the newspapers? MR. RAYMER: I assume that the records of the newspapers are quoted from the records of the Board of Educa- tion. MR. RITTER: That is an assump- tion, isn’t it, alderman? MR. RAYMER: No; I don’t think so. I have attended some meetings of the Board of Education, and that was usually my experience. I don’t believe, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the Convention, that the members o’f the Board of Education should assume that the school board rooms are a public quorum; and I am inclined to think that this is the posi- tion that some of the members of the Board of Education have taken in times past. I do not refer entirely to the present board. I know that the situa- tion has been pretty much the same in other boards of education that we have had. I believe that the fewer members of the Board of Education we have, the better the business of education will be transacted in this community. I be- lieve that the situation has been fully covered; I feel satisfied to leave the question to the vote of this Convention; and I think, Mr. Chairman, that if this Convention will adopt the amendment as suggested, they will be doing a great deal for the advancement of education in Chicago. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon Alderman Raymer’s amendment to change the number of members of the Board of Education from fifteen to nine; all those in favor of the amendment will signify by saying aye. MR. G. W. DIXON: Let us have a roll call, please, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Call the roll. Yeas — Gansbergen, Lathrop, McCor- mick, Merriam, Raymer, Shedd, Smul- ski — 7. Nays — Beebe, Beilfuss, Bennett, Bros- seau, Burke, Church, Ritter, Dixon, G. W.; Eckhart, B. A.; Eckhart, J. W.; Eidmann, Erickson, Guerin, Jones, Kit- tleman, Linehan, Lundberg, MacMillan, McGoorty, McKinley, O ’Donnell, Owens, Paullin, Pendarvis, Powers, Revell, Rob- ins, Shanahan, Shepard, Snow, Sunny, Tajdor, Yopicka, Werno, White, Wil- kins, Zimmer — 37. (During roll call.) MR. POST: As I am not very clear upon the question, in my own mind, that a board of a certain type ought to be small, a board of a certain type ought to be large, I do not feel compe- tent to pass an opinion upon this ques- tion until I know what the powers and functions of the board are; I, therefore, ask to have my vote passed. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon Mr. Ray- mer’s motion to change the number from fifteen to nine, the yeas are 7, and the nays are 37, and the motion is lost. The question recurs upon the report as printed. All those in favor of fifteen will signify by saying aye; opposed, nay. Carried. The next clause is already passed up- on by this Convention. The third clause is: “ Shall be con- firmed at a meeting subsequent to that at which they shall have been nomina- ted.” MR.' RITTER: I think that should be changed to approval of the majori- ty. * December 21 618 1906 THE CHAIRMAN: That was changed at the last meeting — majority; the record so shows it. MR. SHANAHAN: I would like to move to reconsider the vote by which that was passed last evening, to a ma- jority of the council — to have a ma- jority of the council confirm the mem- bers of the school board; I have no personal opinion as to whether a ma- jority or two-thirds is the best, but I think that the members of this Con- vention ought to be consistent. If you are going to compel a two-thirds con- firmation of the corporation counsel, and two-thirds confirmation of the Park Board, I think it is no more than right that you ought to have a two-thirds confirmation of the school board. THE CHAIRMAN: How did Mr. Shanahan vote? MR. SHANAHAN: I voted in favor of a majority last night. MR. LINEHAN: Would it not be more consistent to consider the measure of Doctor White and make that a ma- jority? MR. SHANAHAN : I will leave that to the Convention. MR. LINEHAN: I think the White one is the one that ought to be re-con- sidered. MR. LATHROP: It has been sug- gested already, that, as the Convention had committed itself to a majority in the other, that they would ask a recon- sideration of that question in regard to the parks, and make that a majority. MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Chairman, we have got a rather small meeting to- night, and we have had small meetings for some nights past, and now, when we get a full meeting of pretty near the whole Convention, it may be that we will have radically different majorities from what we have had. When we are so lucky as to have a large meeting, would it not be better to have all these matters of reconsideration come up at tlje same time? Now, that I am on my feet, and be- fore making a motion to lay this over to a future day, I wish to make a suggestion — that the Secretary of the Convention, at his next call, instead of sending out a postal card, send out a printed letter to the various members of the Convention, calling their atten- tion to the fact that we are acting with very few members present, and remind- ing them of their duty to come here to the Convention. This might not seem an entirely proper suggestion, were it not a fact, proven in council committees, that often that is the only way we can get the members to come. So, Mr. Chairman, I will make it a motion — first, that the question of re- consideration be deferred THE CHAIRMAN: The motion that the reconsideration be deferred. MR. SHANAHAN: I accept Mr. McCormick *s amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: I wish to call your attention to the fact that we have fifty delegates here tonight — two-thirds of the Convention, and that is almost as much as we have at any Convention; fifty-six is the largest meeting that we have had. All those in favor of deferring the reconsideration of this question will please signify by saying aye; opposed, no. Carried. MR. McCORMICK: I differ with the Chair that two-thirds is enough, and move that the next time notice is sent out it be sent out by letter, calling at- tention to the fact that a full member- ship is desired — in addition to the card. THE CHAIRMAN : Without putting that to a vote, the Chair will see that it is done, although I must state that the postal cards have already gone out for tomorrow. MR. WILKINS: I have a couple of resolutions that I would like to have read tonight, and printed in the min- utes, for the consideration of the Con- vention. December 21 619 1906 THE CHAIRMAN: They will be re- ceived and read before the Convention adjourns. MR. SHEDD : I have also sent a res- olution to the Secretary’s desk which I wish to have read, deferred and pub- lished, and I hope the members of the Convention will give it attention, and that they will come here prepared to adopt it by a unanimous vote. MR. HILL: Mr. Shanahan sug- gested a reconsideration of that ques- tion; Mr. Linehan and Mr. Lathrop, I understood, suggested a reconsidera- tion of the Park Board. I understand a vote was put on the reconsideration question; what was it? THE CHAIRMAN: It was agreed that all reconsiderations be deferred for the time being. MR. McCORMICK: I have a mo- tion before the house. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not think a vote was necessary, inas- much as the Secretary has already been instructed to carry out Mr. McCor- mick’s desire in the matter. MR. McCORMICK: I am very glad I don ’t need to have the Convention vote on it. THE CHAIRMAN: The next matter is the question of the confirmation at a meeting subsequent to the meeting at which the Board of Education are nomi- nated. MR. EIDMANN: I don’t think there will be any difference of opinion on the advisability of permitting the council to have an opportunity of knowing who the appointments are before they are called to act, and I think there is no question about that at all, and I do not think we ought to spend any time dis- cussing that, but put it to a vote. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor of that clause signify by saying aye; opposed, no. Carried. The Secretary will read the next par- agraph, No. 2. That has been passed. The next paragraph to that, Mr. Secre- tary, “They shall serve,” etc. The Secretary read the paragraph. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lathrop ’s amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lathrop has an amendment here. The Secretary re-read Mr. Lathrop ’s amendment. MR. LATHROP: Mr. Chairman, pardon me, that amendment would not fit with this number of fifteen. THE CHAIRMAN: This is upon the term of office. MR. LATHROP: Yes, but the amendment is drawn to a specific num- ber, and it would not fit with this num- ber. THE CHAIRMAN: The second par- agraph, you have an amendment here for that, that they shall serve for a term of six years, and that is the amendment; to the pending matter, and the question is upon Mr. Lathrop ’s motion to make the term six years in- stead of four years. Are you ready for the question? THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor of the motion will signify by say- ing aye; opposed, no. The motion is lost. The motion is now upon the adoption of the four-year term. All in favor will say aye; opposed, no. The motion is carried. The question is now upon the adop- tion of the second paragraph. The Secretary read the paragraph. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor of the adoption of the section will signify by saying aye; opposed, no. The motion is carried and it is adopted. Next. The Secretary read the paragraph. MR. G. W. DIXON: I move its adoption, MR. LINEHAN: Mr. Chairman, I desire to offer an amendment to that, that the members of the Board of Ed- ucation shall receive an annual salary of $2,500. December 21 620 1906 THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Linehan moves MR. LINEHAN: I move that as a substitute. THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Linehan moves an amendment that it provide that the members of the Board of Edu- cation shall receive an annual salary of $2,500. MR. B. A. ECKHART: Mr. Chair- man, I hope that motion will not pre- vail. I believe that members of the Board of Education as well as members of the Park Board should serve without compensation. I believe it is possible for the mayor of the City of Chicago to find men who will serve and be glad to serve without compensation. Men who have had experience in business af- fairs, and who have capacity for work of that character, and who have the time to devote to it, and who will de- vote their time to it. I do not believe it is necessary in every instance to pro- vide compensation for positions of this character where men will serve because they have had public experience and because they have some civic pride. I am of the opinion too, that you will get a much abler class of men and more competent men if you will rely upon their willingness to serve this community. Men who desire to be known in this community as having done something for their fellow citizens. Not engaged entirely for the almighty dollar, men who do not believe every effort they make ought to be for the dollars and the cents. There is no difficulty at all in a city like Chicago for any mayor to find fifteen men, men who have leisure, plenty of leisure, and who -have experience, and who are will- ing to devote their time to such a cause as the education of the young; and I trust that we will not in addi- tion to what we have already done in providing for the expenditure of large sums of money add this increased bur- den upon the city. We have already increased the salar- ies of the aldermen to an aggregate amounting in the neighborhood of $140,000. And now you propose an amendment that will again cause the treasurer of this city to disburse money at the same time saying in your charter that you shall provide for a limitation of the taxes. Because why? It is be- cause that all of these people who in the nature of things become tax-eaters should be kept within reasonable bounds, that you make these limitations, and I do not believe at this time it is neces- sary when we find our city in such a deplorable financial condition that we should provide for large salaries for all these places that can be well filled by men who are willing to make personal sacrifices for the honor which necessar- ily attaches to such a position. MR. CHURCH: Mr. Chairman, I will not attempt to refute the statement made by Mr. Eckhart that the mayor could find without difficulty men who would serve without compensation on the Board of Education, and I am not going to argue that question, Mr. Chairman; but I sim- ply want to ask this Convention whether it is fair to all the people of this city to have a Board of Education repre- sented by the class who can afford to serve without compensation alone? I for one do not believe it is fair to the entire people of the City of Chicago that our Board of Education should be so constituted, and I believe in the spirit of Mr. Linehan ’s amendment. I believe that salary should be fixed. There are certain elements in the popu- lation of the City of Chicago which are entitled to be represented on the Board of Education, and in the manner in which it is contemplated to constitute this Board of Education their representa- tives could not serve unless compensation is paid them for the time which they are required to give; and I believe that it is far more important that a salary be fixed or at least as important that a December 21 621 1906 salary be fixed for the members of the Board of Education as it is that a salary should be fixed for the members of the City Council or any of the departments of our city government. MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman, and gen- tlemen: It seems to me that this is too important a question to pass over or to take a vote upon without a little con- sideration. While there is great force in the remarks which have been made by Mr. Eckhart as to the financial phase of the question, still I am heartily in sym- pathy with the remarks which have just been made by Mr. Church. I do not think there is a more important depart- ment in our city government than that of the schools. I do not think there is a department that requires more care and more ability to properly conduct. Now, I believe that we are proceeding on a wrong principle when we ask men to come forward and serve in a position that is going to take a great part of their time, and serve without compensation. If a man serves on this board as he ought to serve, he must necessarily sacri- fice his own business very largely. If he is a man of large business interests, he must necessarily sacrifice a large por- tion, of his time, and I think it would be improper to establish this principle at this time when we are preparing a charter for the City of Chicago, that the school board must practically be made up in every instance of wealthy men. There may be men of moderate means and great ability who are in every way desirable to be placed upon that board, but who are absolutely debarred from being placed upon the board if they are required to give their time and services without any compensation. MR. ECKHART: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the gentleman a question: J)o you say that the members of the Board of Education are all wealthy men? MR. HILL: I have no information, Mr. Eckhart; I do not know. MR. ECKHART: Have you ever heard that it has been difficult to secure men^to serve on the Board of Education? MR. HILL: I never asked a man to work for me in my life that I did not expect to pay him for it. 1 do not believe the public ought to ask people of ability and experience, competent to give the very best service and aid in the service of the city, to do so unless they are paid for it. I think a man of moderate means and ability ought to have an opportunity to serve upon this board. I think a man of great business in- terests, if he sacrifices those interests to serve us, ought to receive some recom- pense. I do not believe that a man can afford to sacrifice his own business and give it up entirely and expect to live off the salary he receives, but I do think there ought to be some consideration with it. Now, it is a fact and statistics show it, that the wealthy men do not seem to be the most interested in this question, so far as public schools are concerned. They are able to send their children to other schools if they are not satisfied with common schools ; they have the means to do it, and if it is not satisfac- tory to them they simply send them some- where else where it is satisfactory. But it is not so with the poor people of the city; they must rely upon the schools of the city, and I think that a man of mod- erate means, who has the ability, should be able to give the city his services and receive some recompense for the sacrifice he must make in giving those services. I think we ask too many people to sacri- five their own business and give up their services for nothing. We do not do it in our private business, and why should a city like the City of Chicago ask men to sacrifice their own business and to serve the city when it has been remarked by men of experience on the school board, by our educators here as to the onerous duties that are placed on them, and if they do their work as it should December 21 622 1906 be done it will take a large portion of their time, and therefore I think we should consider this a little more care- fully and not vote on it without giving it a little more thought. MR. REYELL: Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Hill a question? THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Revell: MR. REYELL: Have you ever heard of a case, Mr. Hill, where a man re- fused to serve on the Board of Educa- tion or on the Park Board because he could not afford it? MR. HILL : I do not know that I have. I do not know that you have ever asked a man of moderate means to serve on the Board of Education or the School Board. I do not believe there are. There are men serving on the Park Board at the present time and re- ceiving no salary at all, and in private conversation with me they have said that they did not think it was right. I say a man who has ability to serve on the school board, and more particularly on the school board than on the Park Board, to my mind, — I do not think it ought to be made a burden upon him; I do not think a man of moderate means ought to be compelled to sacrifice his time with- out recompense for it. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me there ought to be a few civic duties left in the City of Chicago to which the citizens of this city shall have the opportunity of securing and perform- ing without pay, and for the sake of whatever honor may be involved in the situation, and the opportunity that is thereby offered them to benefit their city. I confess that I am not at all in sym- pathy with this commercial aspect of the presentation of the salary side of the question. Aldermen, of course, should be paid; but men Avho serve in the highest possible capacity and serve the most important function of the city, the education of children, should be glad to serve for nothing. Only one thing more, the suggestion I that if you pay men a salary of $2,500 that you are going to improve your school board, in my judgment, will work precisely the other way, and it will sim- ply attract to this office, in so far as influence can get the office for them, a small class of men who could not earn $2,500 a year in any other capacity; and it would simply be a political scramble on the part of small men for what seems to them to be a large salary. Of what interest would it be to a reformer like Mr. Robins, or a clergyman like myself, the presentation of a salary of $2,500? Why, we would scorn the implication con- tained in it that we needed the money. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that you will deteriorate your school board by a prop- osition of this kind. Of course, if you are going to pay anything, let us make the salary $5,000, but in the name of heaven, Mr. Chairman, let us have one or two places in this town where people who are willing to serve the people for nothing may have a chance to do so. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Robins— or, Mr. Linehan claimed the floor. MR. LINEHAN: Mr. Chairman, this is not argument at all! that is not argu- ment at all; it is simply throwing a little foozle around the question. The principle stands just the same, whether the amount suits you or not. If $2,500 isn’t enough, increase it or reduce it; but the principle of paying a salary is the important part, and that principle is based mi purity, irrespective of Brother Robins or Brother White MR. ROBINS: Say, brother, let me speak for myself. MR. LINEHAN : The great civic pride which brings a millionaire who has no children, or half a dozen millionaires who have no children, which brings them into the mayor’s office every year en- deavoring to get an appointment on the school board is not any more worthy of recognition than the pride of the work- men, who supply all the children and December 21 623 1906 all the money for the maintenance of the public institutions of this city. Let me say to you right here until this board was appointed there never was a laboring man appointed until Thomp- son was appointed by Carter Harrison, who just finished his term. Now, is that man so wholly devoid of education and of consideration of the needs and wants of the children that he is entirely barred from representation on the school board? That is the only way you can bar him. I do not think it comes with the best grace from the cloth to refuse to pay a salary so that he can be disfranchised; practically that is what it means. There is another point, and it is of still more importance: Why will the rich man, the business man of this city, whose life has been spent chasing the almighty dollar so much that his broad- ness of education is lacking, be chosen for the Board of Education instead of the professor of a college, the student of the higher education, the best educated men, whose lives are put in on higher education, but who never get over $1,500 as a general rule, and who are not seeking the job. It is very sel- dom you see one of them courting the job. Generally they have to send out and ask for the minister or the professor. And what do we get from the business men? It is true, broad minded men, big men, put in their time and they make personal sacrifices, but a great many of them do not put in their time and those wealthy business men are always content t» send out a sub-committee on the visits around to the various school houses, hunt up some sub-committees, or some fellow who has not got as much business to attend to, and the things arc not at- tended to. Now, I want that fellow paid. I don ’t care whether this wealthy fellow cares for the salary or not. If he don’t want it he can pay it back, but why should he stand in the road of the man who wants the salary and is willing to give his time and his services to the board. I know there are some laboring men who have not had the benefits of a common school education, but we have some today who have had a higher edu- cation and who know something about education, men who have gone to higher schools, and that, of course, is owing to our public school system. Now, Mr. President, I only want to make this point in connection with this: Do not look at the $2,500; look at the principle involved. If $2,500 is too much, cut it down, but vote just on the princi- ple ; don ’t vote on any basis brought forth by Dr. White, but vote on the principle of paying the man a salary whether it be $2,500 or whatever it may be. ME. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, just a word, or two words, in explanation of what has been said: First, I am very sorry Mr. Linehan took what was in- tended to be merely a pleasantry so seri- ously. I did not intend that it should be considered seriously. Secondly, I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I had no reference to laboring men on the board. I think you will find plenty of laboring men who will be glad to serve in this capacity without remuneration, and I think they ought to have repre- sentation in this Board of Education. ME. EOBINS: Mr. Chairman, it is very unfortunate to have to differ from one of the cloth, but I thought while he was speaking that possibly because he did all his work on Sundays, a large share of it, that may be he was more particular on other days of the week than some of the rest of us. I have been upon the board for a, little while. I am not in need of a salary, and that is my fortune. A great many bet- ter men than myself are in need of one. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have known three important business matters on this board since I have been on it in this short time, no less a business matter, Mr. Chairman, than the adjustment, if possible, by arbitration, of outstanding December 21 624 1906 leasehold interests that are in contest, to be put off three weeks from various special meetings because members of the board were not able to attend. The ex- cuse in every case was, ‘ 1 Well, of course, we have to earn our living. You are lucky you have not to earn it. ’ ’ I do not know how they know that, but they seem to know. However, it is true, I do not have to earn it. The point made by Mr. Linehan seems to me to be the right view to take at this time. I do not think he, and I am sure I do not care for the $2,500; if $1,500 is better, all right; if $5,000, all right; but the principle that a man who should give his time and attention to the Board of Education of the City of Chicago should be paid by the City of Chicago, I have not the slightest ques- tion about that from my few months’ ex- perience on that board. I wish to say to the gentlemen of this Convention that just as I have noted that the real duties that? should be performed, and in some notable cases are admirably and splen- didly performed by members of the City Council, it has convinced me in the course of some years ’ experience that the body should be paid $3,500, and then $5,000, as soon as the - city funds per- mitted it, and precisely the same line of judgment and experience and observation forces the conclusion that a member of the school board of Chicago who is to do the real work that such a school board member should perform should be in a position to give practically the whole of his time to those duties. Now, when I say the whole of his time I mean that he should be free to do that, and he should be saved from the necessity of making his living before he can do it. I think there should be some members on the Board of Educa- tion who won ’t need this money at all, but I believe that the making of a salary for the members and then holding the members responsible for the perform- ance of their duties in every way, not in a perfunctory way, is the best way to get effective administration of the city schools. MR. CHAIRMAN : Are you ready for the question? MR. KITTLEMAN: Mr. Chairman, I voted a while ago for the school board of fifteen members, and in the light of what Mr. Linehan has said, and the other gentleman who just preceded me, I am almost constrained to make a motion to reconsider, because if you are going to pay men on the school board; — if you are going to hire men, I am in favor of a school board of about three, and we will put it on that basis and give them a good salary and let them go ahead and do the business and hold them re- sponsible. But that is not my idea of a school board, and I believe that when you put them on a monetary basis that you take out all of this interest you heard about awhile ago when the board should be twenty-one members, and all the men who make a sacrifice and women who make a sacrifice for the good of the schools and give their time because of the great institution it is! Now, I agree with Dr. White; — there ought to be something left somewhere where men who are willing to make a sacrifice for the general good could seek positions, and there is no place in my judgment where it is more important than in the school board; and I am certainly opposed to any salary being attached to the mem- bers of the school board. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll upon Mr. Linehan ’s amendment. Yeas — Beebe, Beil fuss, Burke, Church, Erickson, Hill, Linehan, Lundberg, Mc- Cormick, McKinley, Owens, Robins, Shepard, Snow, Zimmer — 15. Nays— Bennett, Brossean, Crilly, Dix- on, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Gansbergen, Jones, Kittle- man, Lathrop, MacMillan, McGoorty, Merriam, O’Donnell, Paullin, Pendarvis, December 21 625 1906 Raymer, Revel], Rosenthal, Shanahan, Shedd, Smulski, Taylor, Yopieka, Wer- no, White, Wilkins — 29. (During roll call.) MR. RITTER : ' Mr. Chairman, what is the motion? THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is upon Mr. Linehan ’s amendment that members of the Board of Education will receive a compensation of $2,500 per annum. MR. RITTER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to pass on that. I do not believe in having people work for nothing. At the same time I am not in favor of fixing any amount. I would sooner have the privilege of passing the vote. MR. GUERIN: I pass. MR. POST: I adopt Mr. Ritter’s re- mark, and want to pass it. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the amend- ment of Mr. Linehan that the members of the Board of Education should re- ceive compensation of $2,500, the yeas are 15, and the nays 29, and the motion is lost. MR. EIDMANN: I have a resolution here. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the amendment. The Secretary read the resolution as hereinafter printed. MR. EIDMANN : Mr. Chairman MR. SNOW : A point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. EIDMANN: I ask that that be published and passed to a subsequent meeting. MR. SNOW: That has been adopted by the Convention already. THE CHAIRMAN : What is that amendment? Let us see it, please. MR. EIDMANN: The amendment goes to the point that it covers all ap- pointments by the mayor. Up to now it is always a question whether the coun- cil must concur in appointments or whether the council need not concur; and there is some difference of opinion. In order that there shall be some uni- formity, I introduce this resolution and ask that it .be printed. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the resolu- tion be printed. MR. B. A. ECKHART: I move the adoption of the next paragraph. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor — MR. WHITE: What is that, please? THE CHAIRMAN : That the mem- bers of the Board of Education shall serve without compensation. All those in favor signify by saying aye; opposed, no. It is carried. We will proceed to the next. MR. WHITE: I wish to offer an amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: On lines four and five, I wish to substitute twenty-five years for thirty years ; I can see absolutely no reason in this age of young men, this age in which young men are doing things, and know how to do things, why we should dispense with the possibility and the ability of men between twenty-five and thirty; I cannot see any reason for making that age thirty. I am in favor of the - young fellows between twenty- five and thirty, who do things. THE CHAIRMAN: Doctor White moves to change the word thirty to twenty-five. Are you ready for the question ? MR. ROBINS: Mr. Chairman, I hope that motion will not prevail. I do not see why Doctor White and the members of this Convention should open young men to temptation just now, by placing the age at twenty-five. I think it would be hard on the public morals were we to vote down this resolution. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor of Doctor White’s measure, reduc- ing the age to twenty-five years, will say aye ; opposed, nay. The Chair is of the impression that some of the mem- bers voted on both sides. Call the roll, please. Yeas -Brosseau, Crilly, Ritter, Dixon, December 21 626 1906 G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Erickson, McCor- mick, McGoorty, McKinley, Merriam, 0 ’Donnell, Paullin, Peridarvis, Powers, Revell, Shanahan, Smulski, Yopieka, Werno, White, Wilkins — 21. Nays — Beilfuss, Bennett, Burke, Church, Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Gans- bergen, Guerin, Hill, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, Lundberg, MacMillan, Owens, Post, Eaymer, Robins, Rosenthal, Shedd, Shepard, Snow, Taylor, Zimmer • — 25. (During roll call.) MR. G. W. DIXON: Mr. Chairman, 1 desire to be recorded as voting aye. MR. B. A. ECKHART: I desire to be recorded as voting no. THE CHAIRMAN: The yeas are 21, nays 25, and the motion to change the age is lost. MR. McCORMICK: I then move to reconsider. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is now upon the adoption of the section as printed. As many as favor it signify by saying aye; opposed, nay. Carried. Section 3. The Secretary read Section 3. MR. TAYLOR: I was called - upon at the opening of this discussion to state any material difference by omis- sion or addition between the reports we are now acting upon, or the resolution we are now acting upon, and the com- mittee’s original report. It is but just to the committee, then, to inform the Convention that in their report they decided, by a large majority, if not by a unanimous vote, that property should be acquired by condemnation only, and that is not included in the resolution be- fore us. I would also call attention to the pro- visions of the existing law which are re- ferred to here, and which, as far as we could learn, have operated satisfactor- ily. I will not read them in detail, un- less called upon, though I have them ready. The latter part of this resolution is an addition of very grave and great im- portance, and nothing that we will have to act upon in this whole report should be. more carefully considered that this last clause: that no real estate shall be leased for a term longer than five years, nor shall the terms of any existing lease be altered without a concurrence of the City Council. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the mo- tion? MR. TAYLOR: I move the adoption of the resolution as it stands. MR. LATHROP: I would like to ask for information, Doctor Taylor. Does that mean that property shall not be acquired by lease, or that no lease shall be made of school property? MR. TAYLOR: The leasing of school property shall only be for five years at a time, without the concurrence of the City Council. MR. SHANAHAN: I would like to ask Mr. Taylor a question: Do I under- stand, by the reading of this section, that no property belonging to the school board can be leased for a longer term than five years? MR. TAYLOR: Without the concur- rence of the council. MR. SHANAHAN: I do not believe that is what is intended by this section. The way this section reads: “No school property shall be leased for a longer term than five years ; ’ ’ then it goes on : 1 1 nor shall the terms of any existing lease be altered without the concurrence of the City Council.” I expect the intention was that no school property could be leased for a longer term than five years without the concurrence of the City Council : that is the way this section reads. MR. VOPICKA: I move, as a sub- stitute for the motion of Mr. Taylor, that the report of the Committee on Education be substituted for this mo- tion. MR. TAYLOR : Will you read it, page 10, Section 3? December 21 627 1906 The Secretary read the report. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Yopicka moves to substitute that for the pend- ing motion. MR. YOPICKA : Not the whole of it ; just the first part in regard to the acquir- ing of real estate for the schools. MR. TAYLOR: Do you mean to sub- stitute the first section for the whole section ? MR. YOPICKA: No, only that part. MR. SHANAHAN: I would like to call attention to the language used in this, also. (Reads section.) I take it that is rent property for school pur- poses. MR. YOPICKA: I think we must have that in the body of the report, — 1 cannot find it. THE SECRETARY: Pages 10 and 11 of the proceedings of the Convention. MR. SHEPARD: What is it? THE SECRETARY: Section 3, school property. MR. RITTER: Mr. Chairman: Is the pending motion, a substitution, tak- ing a corrected copy of the report? Is the intention to substitute Section 3, on the left hand side of the page, or the right hand page? THE CHAIRMAN: You will have to ask Mr. Vopicka that. THE SECRETARY: The left hand side of the page. MR. YOPICKA: The left hand side; but what I think I will do, Mr. Chair- man — THE CHAIRMAN: Order, gentle- men. MR. VOPICKA: The report is too long. I do not think we have succeeded in getting to the right point in this ques- tion. At least, Mr. Chairman, T believe it would be a good point if you would read paragraph 1 of our report on page 54, under the title of Property: “The state may acquire property by pur- chase, M etc. Mr. Chairman, I move that this — the adoption of this article 13, school property. THE SECRETARY: That was car- ried, Mr. Yopicka. MR. VOPICKA: I mean — where is Education? MR. LATHROP : There are so many different reports here. THE CHAIRMAN: What is that? MR. LATHROP: There are so many different reports here. I have four or five in this same volume. MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, this so- called corrected copy of the report is not a corrected copy of the report, and is not the report of the Committee on Edu- cation. It seems to me this document ought to be entirely eliminated from this Convention, because a member re- fers to this document, and it ' is not correct. I therefore move for further consideration of this subject, and this so-called corrected report be disregarded. MR. TAYLOR : Mr. Chairman, the left hand column of that report is the exact report of the Committee on Edu- cation with the correction of many typo- graphical errors which were in the original report. MR. JONES: If you look at the top of this document, the right hand column, it says : ‘ ‘ Corrected report, ’ ’ and gives the column. I happened to be a mem- ber of the Educational Committee; that committee was not called for the pur- pose of considering any corrected report, and I do not consider that the matter in the right hand column is the correct report of the committee. MR. TAYLOR: No, I explained that. MR. JONES: I do not think it is a correct report at all. In compliance with orderly procedure, I think we should dismiss this document from considera- tion and refer the matter to another meeting. MR. TAYLOR: I have no objection. MR. B. A. ECKHART: I would like to offer a substitute. On page 594 I would like to move the insertion of that. December 21 628 1906 The Secretary read the substitute, as hereinafter printed. MR. B. A. ECKHART: I think that would clear up that provision that we are now discussing. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, may I make an explanation? I have discov- ered the omission of a comma from that first draft here, which would greatly clear it up; and Mr. Eckhart’s amend- ment will make it doubly clear ; there Avas the omission of a comma here that would entirely alter the sense of it. After the word 1 1 altered, ’ ’ it should be — MR. EIDMANN : I have an amend- ment written, here, which would cover the point. THE CHAIRMAN: Everybody’s? MR. EIDMANN: Everybody’s, I think. My amendment, I think, will specify what kind of a vote is necessary in .regard to long term leases. THE CHAIRMAN: We will vote on Mr. Eckhart’s first. Read Mr. Eid- mann’s motion. The Secretary read Mr. Eidmann ’s substitute as hereinafter printed. MR. EIDMANN: I move the adop- tion of that amendment. MR. SHEPARD: What is that? THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is rather confused as to what is before the house. Doctor Taylor moves the adop- tion of the section as read; Mr. Yopicka moves the substitution of another sec- tion, — I presume the Secretary has got that; — Mr. Eckhart has got a substi- tute or amendment — the Chair is in doubt whether it is an amendment to Doctor Taylor or Mr. Yopicka, and Mr. Eidmann has another amendment, and the Chair is in doubt what this amend- ment is to. MR. VOPICKA: I withdraw my mo- tion, and that will simplify matters. THE CHAIRMAN : That simplifies it. MR. EIDMANN : The amendment is MR. ROBINS: I would like to hear from Mr. Eckhart. MR. B. A. ECKHART: I move the adoption of the amendment. MR. SHANAHAN: We have Mr. Eid- mann ’s amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: Will the Secre- tary read the amendment as proposed by Mr. Eckhart ? THE SECRETARY: I will try. Page 593, lower right hand column, 3, School Property: As amended by B. A. Eck- hart : ‘ ‘ The charter shall re-enact in substance the provisions of the existing law regarding the acquisition, tenure and disposition of property, for school pur- poses; but no real estate shall be leased for a term longer than five years with- out the concurrence of the City Council, nor shall the terms of any lease be al- tered without such concurrence. ’ ’ MR. EIDMANN: I move, as a sub- stitute, my amendment, which, I think, specifies just exactly what kind of a vote is necessary. Mr. Eckhart’s amendment does not provide for th,e kind of a vote that is necessary. THE CHAIRMAN: Read Mr. Eid- mann ’s amendment. MR. EIDMANN: In all sale of real estate it is necessary for a three-fourths vote, and long leases are the same as a sale, and the same vote should prevail. MR. SHANAHAN: Now, Mr. Chair- man, — THE CHAIRMAN : Just one minute, Mr. Eidmann. Do you want the floor, Mr. Shanahan? MR. SHANAHAN: You said, “Mr. Eidmann ” ; I want the amendment read. THE CHAIRMAN: Read Mr. Eid- mann ’s amendment. The Secretary read Mr. Eidmann ’s resolution as hereinafter printed. MR. REVELL: Mr. Chairman, MR. SHANAHAN : As I understand the provision of this section, this ap- plies to property that is to be leased for school purposes, and under the wording of this it will not apply to property owned by the schools which are leased out for other purposes. It says here: December 21 629 1906 1 ‘ The charter shall re-enact in substance the provisions of the existing law, re- garding the acquisition, tenure and dis- position of property for school purposes; but no real estate shall be leased for a term longer than five years, nor shall the terms of any existing lease be al- tered without the concurrence of the City Council, ’ ’ subject to this amendment, “but no real estate shall be leased for a term longer than five years. ” Now “no lease, ” — that reverts back to the first part of this section, and that is for property that is to be leased for school purposes, and not to property that is now held by the school board and may be leased for other purposes. ME. EIDMANN ; I desire to with- draw my amendment. My idea was that school purposes — all property leased by the Board of Education, or money lent to people for erecting expensive buildings on this property, was for school pur- poses; that the revenue derived from the lease of this property was to be used for school purposes. ME. SHANAHAN: This entire sec- tion ought to be re-drafted. MB. EIDMANN : If that is not the intention of the committee, then I would want to withdraw my amendment. MB. ^IcGOOBTY: I think the sec- tion will bear the construction which had already been placed upon it, because in line 4, the word ‘ 1 disposition ’ ’ appears, and, if it means anything, it means that leases be. made fcy the Board of Educa- tion, as well as on the property which the board might acquire by lease, and that followed by the clause: “Nor shall the terms of any existing lease be altered without the concurrence of the City Council,” seems to make it quite ap- parent that the drafter of this resolution had in mind thaf any property to either be acquired by the Board of Education or to be disposed of by the Board of Education, by purchase, condemnation, lease or otherwise. ME. SHANAHAN: why would not this, that the charter shall re-enact in substance the existing law regarding ’the disposition, tenure and disposition of school property MB. TAYLOE: Disposition? MB. SHANAHAN : School property, not property for school purposes. MB. WHITE: I think this belongs to the lawyers, and it might help matters if we all understood the present prac- tice, which I understand is that in selling property or acquiring property of the school board the board can only do it with the concurrence of the City Council, but the question of leasing school prop- erty, such as is included in block 142, is referred to in the last part of the clause, and in that matter the City Coun- cil now is not obliged to concur. To me, the clause was entirely clear, with the omission of the comma, and if that be reinserted it would make it clear to me; whether it is legally clear I don ’t know. MB. BOSENTHAL: I would like to ask a question, or, rather, two questions: The first one is this: “Nor shall the terms of any existing lease be altered. ’ ’ Does that mean leases now existing or leases made at any subsequent time? MB. TAYLOB: Now in existence. MB. BOSENTHAL: At the present time in existence? MB. TAYLOB: Yes, sir. MB. BOSENTHAL: Then, a second question I have to ask is this: Are there any leases in existence, the unexpired term of which is less than five years? If there are it seems to me we ought to except those leases. MB. BEVELL: Mr. Chairman, — THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Eosentlial has the floor yet. MR. BOSENTHAL: Then I think we ought to have a further amendment to this, which the others probably will as- sent to: that the terms of any existing leases, the unexpired term of which is longer than five years. MB. BEVELL: I would like to ask Mr. Eckhart when the next meeting of Mr. Chairman, December 21 630 1906 the Committee on Plan, Procedure and Rules, will be held. MR. B. A. ECKHART : It will be at any time that they may agree upon to meet. MR. REYELL: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, this is far too important a section, in its mixed and ambiguous state, for us to act upon at this hour of the night. We should have plenty of time. If you desire to go on with further business, the next matter is entirely dif- ferent and does not relate to the one now before us; and, in order that we may get the matter straight before us and get a section that will be intelli- gible, I move that this matter be de- ferred— referred to the committee just referred to and reported upon by them. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye; opposed, no. (The motion prevailed.) MR. ROBINS: I want to move that when this Convention adjourns tonight, it adjourns to meet on Wednesday, the 2nd day of January. THE CHAIRMAN: The rules pro- vide for a meeting tomorrow afternoon, at which time the question of Suffrage is made a special order. MR. ROBINS: When was Suffrage made a special order? MR. G. W. DIXON: I don’t think it was made a special order for to- morrow 7 . THE CHAIRMAN: It was to be taken up immediately after the disposi- tion of Education. MR. ROBINS: There is a Revenue Committee meeting tomorrow morning; I think they will be three or four hours going over their work. This is the last Saturday before Christmas, and I know a great many members who cannot be here. I have attended every session of this Convention; I would like to attend all future meetings. I find it • a good field of education, and I don ’t w r ant to miss any of it; but I believe this Con- I vention will do wisely if they will con- sent to an adjournment until after the holidays. I don’t mean particularly the 2nd day of January, but until after Christmas. I ask for a second for my motion. MR. McCORMICK: Seven-thirty on the 2nd day of January? THE CHAIRMAN: The City Coun- cil have a meeting on that night, and w r e cannot have the chamber. MR. ROBINS: At 2 o’clock in the afternoon. As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, there are about two weeks of drafting work to be done. I heard it spoken of by the Committee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan, and I imagine our expert is not going to work all during Christmas holidays. It seems to me, we have all learned a great deal, and w 7 e will be able to think over these matters and to dispatch business more effectively, in my judgment, if we take such an adjournment. THE CHAIRMAN: What will we do about the notices that are out? MR. SHEPARD : Mr. Chairman, some time in the early part of last week w r e set down a schedule of meetings for this Convention, which included a ses- sion for 2 o’clock tomorrow afternoon. Now, the question of adjournment over the Christmas holidays may be taken up tomorrow 7 afternoon and considered and disposed of then, but I submit we should meet tomorrow 7 afternoon and continue w 7 ork so far as w r e are £ft)le to go. Further than that, notices have been sent out for tomorrow’s session of this Convention. There is no sacrifice im- posed upon anybody so far as Christmas holidays are concerned, in meeting to- morrow 7 afternoon ; and the duty im- posed upon the members of this Conven- tion ought to weigh upon them, it seems to me, sufficiently to cause them to wil- lingly meet tomorrow 7 afternoon, that we might further the disposition of this work before the Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chairman December 21 631 1906 would urge a meeting tomorrow after- noon, as strongly as permitted. MR. TAYLOR : On the general proposition of the adjournment until the first of the year, we should certainly re- member that the Legislature opens on the 9th of January, aud that if we do not finish this preliminary consideration of the still pending matters, we will be deprived of the attendance aud partici- pation of all the members of the Legisla- ture. MR. SHANAHAN: Mr. Chairman, I hope the motion to take an adjournment until the 2nd of January will not pre- vail. As a great many members of this Convention think that all we have to | do is draft these resolutions and pre- sent them here, that that is the end of it. I take it that there will be more argument, more debate, and as much time spent over the acts as drafted, than there have been over these reso- lutions. A great many members who have voted on these general resolu- tions will not be satisfied to vote for the drafted laws as presented here; and I hope that every day that can be given to this work will be given by this Con- vention between now and the middle of January or the first of February. MR. McGOORTY: Mr. Chairman, I understand Mr. Robins ’ motion was seconded, but I move that when we ad- journ we adjourn to meet here at 2 o’clock tomorrow. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you desire to adjourn now? MR. McGOORTY: No, when we ad- journ. MR. ROBINS: Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask a roll call on this, but I want to suggest that we could stay here two hours tonight and do all the work that we would do if we met here tomor- row afternoon, after a heavy forenoon’s work. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the roll be called. MR. McGOORTY: What upon? THE CHAIRMAN: Upon Mr. Shep- ard’s motion that when we adjourn we adjourn to meet here tomorrow at 2 o ’clock. MR. ROSENTHAL: I would like to ask THE CHAIRMAN : When your name is called, Mr. Rosenthal. Yeas — Brosseau, Crilly, Eckhart, B. A.; Eckhart, J. W.; Eidmann, Erickson, Gansbergen, Guerin, Hill, Jones, Kittle- man, Lathrop, Linehan, McGoorty, Mc- Kinley, Merriam, O’Donnell, Pendarvis, Powers, Raymer, Revell, Shanahan, Shepard, Taylor, Yopicka, Werno, White, Zimmer — 28. Nays — Church, Owens, Post, Robins, Rosenthal, Smulski — 6. (During roll call.) % THE CHAIRMAN: What is the question, Mr. Rosenthal? MR. ROSENTHAL: I would like to know, if we do meet tomorrow, whether we do adjourn over the holidays? THE CHAIRMAN: The Convention will determine that tomorrow. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is that, when we adjourn, we adjourn to meet tomorrow at 2 o’clock. MR. POWERS: What is the motion? THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is that, when we adjourn, we will adjourn to meet tomorrow at 2 o’clock. MR. POWERS: I vote aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the mo- tion to meet tomorrow at 2 o’clock, the yeas are 28, and the nays are 6. MR. WERNO: Is there anything be- fore the Convention now? THE CHAIRMAN: What? MR. WERNO: Is there any motion pending before the Convention now? THE CHAIRMAN: There are sev- eral communications. MR. WERNO: I would like to move a reconsideration of the vote on para- graph 3, Section 2. MR. RAYMER: I believe the roll call shows that we are without a quorum. December 21 632 1906 THE CHAIRMAN: I don’t know whether there is a quorum or not. MR. BURKE: I would like to have a roll call for the purpose of finding out whether there is a quorum. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary- will call the roll. Will all the gentle- men answer their names, please, so as to decide whether there is a quorum. Present — Foreman, chairman, and Beebe, Beilfuss, Bennett, Brosseau, Burke, Church, Crilly, Ritter, Dixon, G. W.; Eckhart, B. A.; Eckhart, J. W.; Eidmann, Erickson, Gansbergen, Guer- in, Hill, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, McCormick, McGoorty, Mc- Kinley, Merriam, O ’Donnell, Owens, Post, Powers, Raymer, Revell, Robins, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Shepard, Smulski, Taylor, Yopicka, Werno, White, Wil- kins, Zimmer — 42. THE CHAIRMAN: Forty-two pres- ent, and the motion that, when we ad- journ, we adjourn until 2 o’clock to- morrow afternoon, is carried. MR. WERNO: I move for a recon- sideration of the vote on the chapter with reference to the Board of Educa- tion, providing that the members shall serve without compensation. My reason for making that motion is this: I voted to leave that as it is, be- cause it seemed to me that the members of the Board of Education should not be paid a salary, but my attention has been called to this — I have been in- formed that the members of the Board of Education are put to the expense of as much as one thousand dollars a year, some of them, in the performance of their duty, and, in order that that mat- ter may be brought before the Conven- tion, I move a reconsideration of the vote by which that was adopted. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would suggest that you send it up and have it printed in the minutes of the next meet- ing unless you desire a vote immediate- ly. Do you desire a vote now? MR. REVELL: I hope the aider- man will not press that motion at this time. It seems to me that a motion to consider ought to go over to the next meeting, the hour being late now.. THE CHAIRMAN: Do the gentle- men desire to take up the next section? MR. WERNO: I move we adjourn. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the next section, page 594, No. 4. The Secretary read Section 4. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, in moving the adoption of that section, I may explain that the specification here that may seem unnecessary, covered practically points which have already embarrassed those who would extend the school system more largely to the people, and that, while this enumera- tion at these points where there is necessity for it, has £een made, a gen- eral clause has beep added that will not limit the board in adding other things to the list, by the fact that you have enumerated a list of things that they may do. The point was urged private- ly, that, if we enumerate a list, the courts would hold that you could not add anything else to it, but there is a clause at the end of the paragraph which would seem to cover that point. MR. WHITE: I rise for informa- tion. In the last clause it says the Board of Education shall have the power to fix the school age of the pu- pil. I thought we were passing on the whole. I beg your pradon, Mr. Chair- man. THE CHAIRMAN: Passing on the age limit of the pupil. MR. WHITE: Are you voting on the three sections? THE CHAIRMAN: On the three sections. MR. WHITE: Under four. THE CHAIRMAN: Under four. MR. WHITE: I would like to ask a question, at which probably some of the legal talent will smile. The con- stitution provides for the education of December 21 633 1906 children — using the word 1 1 children. ' ' Of course I understand what the in- tention of this is: It is to permit the school board to carry on lecture courses, for instance, to permit adults in the night schools, which I rather suspect we are not now able to do. I would ask whether the word “ children,’ ' as used in the State Constitution, has any legal technical meaning, if we pass this as it stands, understanding the purpose for which we intend to pass. I wonder if I have gotten that straight? THE CHAIRMAN: Doctor Taylor, will. you answer that question? MR. TAYLOR: He asks the ques- tion of lawyers; I am not a lawyer. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, we have not had that answer. THE CHAIRMAN: I didn't get the question; state it again, please. MR. WHITE: Shall I state it again? All right. Mr. Shepard will probably answer it. MR. SHEPARD: As my recollection goes, the Supreme Court has held that the term “ children," as used in the constitution, included all children in the school age. That, I think, whether it is eighteen — under eighteen — MR. BEEBE: Twenty-one. MR. SHEPARD: under twenty- one at present. It includes all children in that class. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, this is what I want to know. I don't know what the intention of the chairman is in this, but I know what my own is. I want a clause, if it is possible and legal, which will permit the schools of Chicago to carry on education in lec- ture courses similar to those in vogue in New York. Also, something that will permit us to educate adults in the night schools. I simply want to know whether we are getting ourselves into any confusion if we pass this; and if we pass it as it now reads, whether we shall find, after we shall have passed it, that it did not mean children under twenty-one years. THE CHAIRMAN: Some man fa- miliar with the constitution will an- swer that. MR. ROSENTHAL: The question before this Convention is whether they have anything in Section 4 that con- flicts with the e’onstitution, and as that Section 4 is, whether that is constitu- tional, there is nothing in it that is in conflict with the constitution. If, in pursuance of a law passed under this section, the Board of Education at- tempt to do something that is in con- flict with the constitution, that is an- other question, but that should not bother us at the present time. All we are con- cerned in, is whether the present section is valid and there is no doubt of it. MR, McGOORTY: In line 9, of par- agraph 1, of section 4, appear the words and avocational, " and there being a definite specification of the va- rious kinds of schools which may be in- cluded under the clause of schools of all grades and kinds, and as the word ‘ 1 avocational ' ' may give rise to some doubt or ambiguity, I move that the words “and avocational" be stricken out in line 9, of paragraph 1, of section 4, and amended by inserting the word “and" preceding “construction," so that it will read, “‘Manual training and constructional, teaching domestic arts," etc. MR. TAYLOR: The word “avoca- tional" would cover the training of teachers for the service in the school. I fail to see why that word is objected to. MR. McGOORTY: Will the doctor yield to a question? THE CHAIRMAN: Doctor Taylor, will you yield to a question? MR. TAYLOR: Yes. MR. McGOORTY: I will ask the doctor if the words “Normal Schools" is not set forth specifically in that par- December 21 634 1906 agraph, as including normal schools, etc., which would cover the training for teachers? But the thought was, doctor, that avocational is a broad term and might include training for theological call- ing, for instance. The words “ Normal Schools” cover fully the teaching. MR. TAYLOR: It \yas not intended to cover the teaching of the profession, but the possibilities of the school -sys- tem? would include some manual arts, and be made the basis of a trade edu- cation. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I think that that word avocational, which per- haps ought to be vocational, was in- serted there with very careful delibera- tion; and my understanding of its in- sertion was for the purpose of enabling the school board, for instance, to main- tain commercial schools, that should definitely fit, as Germany is now fit- ting, and as two cities, at least are be- ginning to fit our young men and young women for vocations. If vocational is the more technical and correct word than avocational, I should like to have the word vocational substituted for avocational. But I trust the amendment will not prevail as made by Mr. Mc- Goorty, because it means something there and was put there for a purpose. THE CHAIRMAN: I think the in- tent of this section is pretty well un- derstood. Are you ready for the ques- tion. MR, RITTER: Merely for the pur- pose of the record, I wish to amend the last line of flie section, which is that the minimum age of graded school, the age shall not be under six years. The question is on the amendment now, is it, Mr. Chairman? THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not understand what the amendment was. Simply a discussion of the word avocational. the word seven for six, making the limit of the minimum age for grade, seven. THE CHAIRMAN : Was yours in the shape of an amendment? MR. McGOORTY: I offered it for that purpose. THE CHAIRMAN: What was the amendment? MR. McGOORTY: The amendment was to strike out the word 1 1 avoea- tional” in line 9, in paragraph 1, of section 4, and insert the word “and” after “training,” so that it would be ‘ ‘ manual training and constructional teaching, domestic arts,” etc. MR. TAYLOR: May I inquire of the mover of that amendment whether he understands the technical use of that term “avocational.” That merely means — has a plain object. We do not want to limit the public schools in the teaching of children to earn their liv- ing taken there; we want the liberty of the public schools to be made the basis of a trained education and commercial education; commercial high school. They are preparing boys and girls for avocations, and I do not see why the school system should be limited in that respect. MR. McGOORTY: I would suggest, then, doctor, it would make it less ob- scure if the word “commercial” were inserted. MR. TAYLOR: I do not want to limit it to commercial pursuits. MR. McGOORTY: I submit it is for manual instruction. MR. TAYLOR: These are technical terms in educational usage. THE CHAIRMAN : Please speak up; we cannot hear you. The reporter cannot bear you. MR. REYELL: I move the adoption of that section as it stands; understand- ing that permission will be granted at another meeting to bring up the question of what word shall be used at that time. MR. RITTER : I wish to make an MR. RITTER: I wish to substitute December 21 635 1906 amendment to substitute the word * 1 seven ’ 1 for ‘ 1 six. ’ ’ THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ritter moves to strike out the word “six” and insert the word “seven.” MR. REVELL: Mr. Chairman THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. O’Donnell. MR. REYELL: I give way to Mr. O’Donnell. MR. O’DONNELL: I move to add the following words after the words * 1 six, ’ ’ at the end of the last paragraph : “provided that the maximum age of compulsory school attendance shall not apply to pupils over the age of four- teen years.” I take it that under this section, as it reads now the school board can fix the exact age, not alone of the younger children, but also of the older children. I want to raise that question at this time because it is mentioned hereafter and under the fear that the construction will be put upon this section that the school board- can fix the age at sixteen, or over fourteen. I want to inject this amendment at this time be- cause I am opposed to the age being raised over fourteen years for compul- sory school attendance in the City of Chicago. THE CHAIRMAN: Have you all those amendments? MR. TAYLOR: I rise to a point of order. Whether this point should not be considered under Section 11. I fail to see why it is relevant here. MR. McGOORTY : I rise to a point of order THE CHAIRMAN: I think that would be better, Mr. O’Donnell. MR. O’DONNELL: I appreciate that it is mentioned there, but this ; statement gives extensive powers. The | last paragraph of this section under con- i sideration reads that the Board of Edu- cation shall have the power to fix the school age of pupils; the age in kinder- I gartens shall not be under four years, and in grade schools shall not be under six years. Now, to that I want to add I my proviso to limit them against fixing thq school age of compulsory education at over fourteen years. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would suggest that all of these amendments be handed to the Secretary and be printed. I do not think this Convention would take up these various amendments to- night. MR. McGOORTY : That covered my point of order. MR. RAYMER : Are we about to consider the amendment offered by Mr. Ritter? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. RAYMER: I hope, Mr. Chair- man and gentlemen, that the amendment offered by Mr. Ritter will not prevail. I do not think it is fain to the child to be compelled to be kept out of the ad- vantages of education until it is after seven years of age. I think that limit is entirely too high. I think the clause should remain just as it is now in that respect. MR. HILL: I would like to ask Mr. Ritter the question for information. WTiether the school board as now ar- ranged does not require eight years of the pupil’s attendance in order to gradu- ate? MR, RITTER: No, sir. MR. HILL: Not eight years. MR. RITTER : It only requires that candidates should attend for the neces- sary length of time to cover the studies. MR. HILL: But doesn’t the curri- culum require eight years for an ordin- ary pupil to pass that course? MR. RITTER: Practically yes and no. The question cannot be answered yes or no. From such investigations as I have been able to make I have found out that the children entering the schools at a later age than seven come to the high school sooner than those who crowd in as we now have them under four years, under the belief that they are six, so that they may be fourteen sooner under the compulsory education law. December 21 636 1906 ME. HILL: The point I desired to make was that the ordinary pupil re- quires eight years to pass the course as now arranged, and if he does not com- mence till seven then it takes one year off the compulsory school age, and it seems to me that it ought to be in the limit that the child should pass the school under the compulsory age. MB. EITTEE: I don’t wish to press the amendment at this time. We might move the previous question. THE CHAIEMAN : There is no need for the previous question. ME. BEVELL: Do I understand that Mr. Bitter withdraws his amendment? ME, EITTEE : No. ME. BEVELL: Do you withdraw? MB. EITTEE : No. ME. EEVELL : If this goes to a vote 1 hope it will be defeated. I would not be in favor of any change in a matter which refers to something upon which we should have some information from educators before we would change it. In the matter of six years I understand as it is now in the schools if the superin- tendent of schools or the assistant super- intendents as a body would bring in any clause here, asking. us to change it, I would be very glad indeed to join the Convention in changing it ; but I do not think we should touch any of these matters which affect the purely educa- tional side of the Board of Education on matters which we have not already passed upon, unless we have such an opinion. THE CHAIEMAN: Gentlemen, are you ready for Mr.. Bitter’s amendment? All those in favor ME. McGOOETY : What is the amendment? THE CHAIEMAN: The amendment is to change the age from six years to seven years. All those in favor of Mr. Bitter ’s amendment signify the same by saying aye; opposed, no. It is lost. ME. J. W. ECKHAET : I want to make an amendment. There seems to be a difference of opinion. I would like to amend after the word 1 1 avocation ’ r 1 1 excepting ecclesiastical avocation. ’ ’ ME. EOSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, to a point of order. THE CHAIEMAN: Mr. Eosenthrl. ME. EOSENTHAL: The point of order, Mr. Chairman, so far as the last amendment is concerned, it is uncon- stitutional anyway for the school board to do anything of that sort. Our con- stitution takes care of that. We need not provide for that in our law. Section 3 of Article 8 of the constitution pro- vides distinctly that the board may not do anything of this sort. So we need not embarrass our legislators by that. ME. J. W. ECKHAET : If I thought it was necessary I would withdraw the motion, but if the constitution would prevent it for educational purposes I withdraw the amendment. THE CHAIEMAN: The next is Mr. O’Donnell’s amendment, that the Board of Education shall not have the power to fix the compulsory age of education at more than fourteen years. MB. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I hope that will not be voted upon tonight. This whole matter has been carefully pro- vided for under Section 6. Mr. Taylor can explain that much better than I can. ME. SHANAHAN: Mr. Chairman— — ME. WHITE: 1 mean under. Section 11 . ME. SHANAHAN: I want to ask a question for information. Is not there a state law regulating that? Doesn’t the state law regulate that? THE CHAIEMAN: Does it? I am not familiar with the law. MB. EOSENTHAL: I rise to a point of order. ME. O’DONNELL: That is what we are making a mistake on now. MB. EOSENTHAL: We have a special section, which is No. 11, en- titled : ‘ 1 Compulsory Education. ’ ’ Now, is not this a pertinent amendment to that December 21 637 1906 Section 11. I therefore ask the Chair to rule it so as a point of order at this time. THE CHAIRMAN: No. 11 applies to that exactly, Mr. O’Donnell. MR. O’DONNELL: I appreciate that, but what I wanted was, I wanted to raise the question, because if the school board fixed the age — the school age, necessarily the compulsory law will step in to carry out the school age, what- ever it is; and for fear that I would be barred from offering this amendment under this section I raised the question now. If it will be consented to that I can raise this question under the com- pulsory section, I will not press this amendment. THE CHAIbiviAN : No objections. MR. O’DONNELL: All right. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is now upon Mr. Revell’s motion. All those approving say aye ; opposed, no. The section is approved. MR, B. A. ECKHART: I move adjournment. MR. SHEPARD: Before that mo- tion is put will you let me suggest that under the rule, Section 5, revenue, should go over until the subject of revenue is brought up, the same as the library, parks and so forth. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection the revenue section will go over until the report of the Revenue Committee. The Convention mil now stand ad- journed until tomorrow afternoon at two o ’clock, and all communications will be printed in the record. And the Convention stood adjourned to meet Saturday, December 22, 1906, at 2 o ’clock p. m. Secretary. December 21 638 1906 MEMORANDA. These memoranda indicate the various matters adopted by the Convention. (See page 50 and succeeding pages of the proceedings. I. SCOPE OF PROPOSED LEGIS- LATION. Action on all paragraphs under this section has been deferred. 1. A complete charter shall be drawn and submitted to the Legislature em- bodying the resolutions adopted by this Convention. Alternative to 1. Separate bills shall be drawn covering the following sub- jects: a. Consolidation (including parks), b. Public utilities, c. Education, d. Revenue, e. Amendments (if any) of the Mu- nicipal Court Act. f. All other charter provisions, which shall be submitted to a separate vote for adoption. II. CONSOLIDATION. 1. The corporate authorities existing at present for the government of the park systems of Chicago shall be abol- ished and the management of the parks shall become a' department of the city government. 2. The administration of the public school system of the city of Chicago and of the Public Library shall con- stitute departments of the city govern- ment. III. THE MAYOR. 1. The charter shall continue sub- stantially the provisions of the pres- ent laws regarding the qualifications and executive functions of the mayor. 2. The charter shall continue the provisions of the present laws regard- ing the relation of the mayor to the city council. Resolved, that it is the sense of this Convention that a clause be inserted in the charter designating a city official who shall act as mayor during the ab- sence or inability of the mayor. First Alternative to 2 b. The mayor shall have a right to a seat in the city council, but shall have no Vote. He shall have the right to speak and present messages and intro- duce measures subject to the general rules of procedure of the city council. Second Alternative to 2: The charter shall continue the pres- ent provisions of the law regarding the relation of the mayor to the city coun- cil, except that he shall not preside at the meetings of the city council, bpt the city council shall elect its own presiding officer from its members. 3. The veto power of the mayor shall be as now prescribed by law. 4. The term of office of the mayor shall be four years. IV. ELECTIONS. First alternative to 1 : Elective city officers shall be nominated under a sys- tem of direct primaries, with appropri- ite provision for independent nomina- tions by petition. 2. The names of all the nominees for each office shall be printed on the ballot under the title of the office for which they are candidates, in alphabeti- cal order, and the designation of the party, if any, to which they belong. The following resolution on the sub- ject of suffrage for women is still pend- ing: 3. The charter shall contain no pro- December 21 639 1906 vision for conferring the right of suf- frage on women. 4. a. The election of all city offi- cers, including those for the municipal court, shall be held in the spring. Pro- vided, however, that judges of the mu- nicipal court shall be elected at a time when no offices other than judicial are to be filled. 5. Candidates and political commit- tees shall be required to make sworn statements of receipts and expenditures of any campaign for nomination or election. V. CIVIL SERVICE. 1. All departments of the city gov- ernment shall be under an appropriate civil service law. Alternative to 1: a. The civil service law shall apply to the department of public parks. The application of the civil service law to the department of public parks shall not operate in and of itself to dis- charge the present employees. b. The civil service law shall apply to tne municipal court. The Bailiff and Chief Clerk of the Municipal Court shall be subject to re- moval by a majority of the judges of the court, after a hearing, for incompe- tency, inefficiency, malfeasance or mis- feasance in office. The reasons for such removal shall be specified in writing and shall be spread at large upon the records of the court. Section 2 of Civil Service, together with resolution printed in the proceed- ings of December 6, have been referred to the Committee on Municipal Elec- tions, Appointment and Tenure of Office, with instructions to report to the Con- vention within ten days. VI. THE CITY COUNCIL. The charter shall provide for redis- tricting the city into seventy wards, of compact and contiguous territory, and with an equitable distribution of area and population, as soon as possible after the adoption of this charter, one aider- man to be elected from each ward. The city shall thereafter be redis- tricted by the City Council every ten years after the federal census has been taken, but no more than seventy wards shall be made. 2. The compensation of aldermen shall be at the rate of thirty-five hun- dred dollars per annum. The term of office of aldermen shall be four years. The aldermen shall be elected at the same time as the mayor. VII. POWERS OF THE CITY COUN- CIL IN GENERAL. 1. The powers of the city council shall be as now prescribed by law, ex- cept as modified by this charter. The city council shall have all powers of local legislation which can, under the con- stitution, be vested in a municipality ; subject to the constitution of the state, the provisions of the charter, and the general laws of the state. 2. The specification of particular powers shall never be construed as a limitation upon the general powers granted by the charter; it being in- tended to grant and bestow upon the City of Chicago all the powers of mu- nicipal government which can constitu- tionally be delegated to it by the legislature, and which are not expressly prohibited to it by this charter, or by the constitution of the state; and are not in conflict with any general law of the state. 3. No ordinance shall be passed finally on the day it is introduced, except when approved by an affirmative vote of two- thirds of all the members of the city council. December 21 640 1906 VIII. POWERS OF THE CITY COUN- CIL WITH REGARD TO OFFICES. The office of City Clerk shall cease to be a Charter office, and the City Council shall have power by ordinance to provide for the method of choosing the City Clerk and to provide for the duty of the City Clerk. The City Treasurer shall be ex-officio city collector. 3. The City Council shall have power to investigate any department of the city government and the official acts and conduct any city officer and the making, terms, and performance of any public contract, and for the purpose of ascertaining facts in connection with such investigation to compel the attend- ance of witnesses and the production of material documents and books. IX. POLICE POWER. 1. The police power of the city shall extend to the prevention of crime, to the preservation and advancement of local peace, safety, morals, health, order and comfort, and to the prevention of fraud and extortion within the community, by measures of regulation, licensing, require- ment of bonds, inspection, registration, restraint and prohibition, as well as by the establishment of municipal services. X. REVENUE. GENERAL TAXATION. Section 1. The City Council of the City of Chicago shall annually in the first quarter of its fiscal year, levy a general tax for all city, school, park and library purposes for such year, not ex- ceeding in the aggregate, exclusive of the amounts levied for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness per centum of the assessed value of the taxable property of said city as assessed and | equalized according to law for gen- j eral taxation. The said City Council I in its annual levy shall specify the re- 1 spective amounts levied for the pay- ment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, the amount levied for general city purposes, amount levied for educational purposes, the amount levied for school building purposes, the amount levied for park purposes and the amount levied for li- brary purposes. The county clerk shall extend upon the collector’s warrant all of such taxes, subject to the limita- tion herein contained, in a single col- umn as the City of Chicago tax. In case the aggregate amount levied, ex- clusive of the amount levied for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, shall exceed per centum of such assessed value such ex- cess shall be disregarded, and the resi- due only treated as certified for exten- sion. In such case all items in such tax levy except those for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, shall be re- duced pro rata. The city treasurer of the City of Chicago shall keep separate funds in conformity to said tax levy, which funds shall be paid out by him, upon order of the proper authority for the purposes only for which the same were levied. 2. The Board of Education of the City of Chicago shall in January of each year prepare and transmit to the City Council a statement of its receipts and expenditures for the preceding calen- dar year stating therein the sources of its receipts and the several objects and purposes of its expenditures. It shall also prepare and transmit to the City Council in January of each year an es- timate of its expenditures for the cur- rent calendar year, stating therein the several objects and purposes of such expenditures. 3. The Board of Park Commissioners of the City of Chicago shall in January of each year prepare and transmit to the City Council a statement of its re- December 21 641 1906 ceipts and expenditures ‘for the preceding calendar year stating therein the sources of its receipts and the several objects and purposes of its expendi- tures. It shall also prepare and transmit to the City Council in January of each year an estimate of its expendi- tures for the current year, stating therein the several objects and purposes of such expenditures. 4. The Board of Library Directors of the City of Chicago shall in January of each year prepare and transmit to the City Council a statement of its receipts and ex- penditures for the preceding calendar year, stating therein the sources of its receipts and the several objects and pur- poses of its expenditures. It shall also prepare and transmit to the City Council in January of each year an estimate of its expenditures for the current year, stating thereing the several objects and purposes of such expenditures. Action on the following propositions has been deferred pending the report of the special commitee on revenue in- formation. Alternative to 1: a. The limit of the tax rate fixed by the charter shall not apply to taxes levied for school purposes, but taxes shall be levied for school build- ing and educational purposes as now provided by law. b. The limit of the tax rate to be fixed by the charter shall not apply to taxes levied for library purposes, but the City Council shall annually levy for library purposes a tax of not less than one mill and not more than one and one-half mill on the dollar on all taxable property in the city. c. The City Council shall have power to levy annually a tax of two mills on the dollar on all taxable property for a police pension fund. 2. The City Council shall have power to levy a tax of one per cent, additional to the rate fixed by the above resolu- tion for a specific purpose or purposes, provided that such additional tax levy shall have been approved by a major- ity of those voting on the question at a general or special election. 3. a. The City Council shall have power to tax and license, or either, any trade, occupation or business carried on wholly or in part within the city limits, and all persons, firms or corporations owning or using franchises or privi- leges. 4. a. The City Council shall also have power to tax or license all wheeled vehicles used upon the streets of the city, or any particular class of such vehicles. The income therefrom shall be used in the repair and improvement of streets and alleys of the city ex- clusively. Alternative to 5: The City Council shall have power to make local im- provements by special assessment or by special taxation of contiguous prop- erty or otherwise; but not more than 50 per cent, of the cost of repaving any street or alley shall thus be im- posed upon contiguous property, after such street or alley has once been paved, and the expense thereof paid in whole or in part by special assessment or special taxation. XI. INDEBTEDNESS. 1. The charter shall vest in the city the power to assume and incur debts and issue bonds in the manner and to the extent that such power is permitted to be granted by the constitutional amendment of 1904. XII. EXPENDITURES. 1. The provisions of the present city act regarding the annual appropriation ordinanc, the limitation of expendi- December 21 642 1906 tures and contracts by such appropria- tions, the keeping of a separate fund for each appropriation, and the require- ment of warrants for payments, shall be substantially embodied in the charter. XIII. PROPERTY. 1. The city may aeqjiire property by purchase or condemnation for any pur- pose for which it may exercise the power of taxation. The following paragraph together with all substitutes and amendments thereto as printed in the proceedings of December 14, 1906, have been re-re- ferred to the Committee on Rules, Pro- cedure and General Plan. The com- mittee report will be found under “Res- olutions.” 2. The city may so acquire property outside of as well as within the city lim its for any municipal purpose. XIY. CONTRACTS. 1. Municipal services may be per- formed and municipal works carried out by the city directly or by means of con- tract. XV. STREETS AND PUBLIC PLACES. All private temporary users of space above or below the level of streets, al- leys or other public places shall pay compensation to the city according to some definite scale to be fixed by gen- eral ordinance. This provision shall not apply to grants for public utilities. XVI. PUBLIC UTILITIES. 1. The provisions of the Mueller law and the limitations contained therein (including the twenty-year limit on franchises), except as herein otherwise provided, shall be extended to all in- tramural railways, subways, telephone, telegraph, gas, electric lighting and power plants, and other local public utility works operated in, over, under or upon the streets and public places of the city, also to docks, wharves and their necessary appurtenances. 2. The present powers regarding water works and water supply shall be con- tinued. 3. Any consent granted by the city for the private operation of public util- ity w T orks shall be made subject to the continuing exercise of the city’s street and police powers concerning the struc- ture or works permitted, whether re- served in the grant or not. Alternative to 4: Such consent hereafter granted, shall further be subject to* the power of the city, whether expressly reserved in the grant or not, to make reasonable regu- lations of the charges to be made in the operation of such public utilities. The city shall have no power to grant away or limit the subsequent exercise of this right, except that the question of rea- sonableness of any such regulation shall always be determined with due regard to the provisions and limitations of the grant under which such public utility is being operated. 5. Such consent shall further be sub- ject to the right of the city to require adequate service and reasonable exten- sions at all times. No city officer or employe shall di- rectly or indirectly ask for, demand or accept for his own use, or for the use of another, any free pass, frank, gratui- ty, gratuitous service, or discrimina- tion from any person or corporation holding or using any franchise, privi- lege or license granted by the city. But this prohibition shall not ex- tend to the furnishing of free transpor- tation to members of the police and fire departments while on duty. The charter shall contain appropriate provisions for the enforcement of this prohibition. The following proposition as offered by Mr. Snow (and amended from the December 21 643 1906 floor by Messrs. Rosenthal and Shepard) is still pending. Amend proposition 1, Section 16, Pub- lic Utilities, by adding the following: Provided that when the city shall own and operate a public utility then and in such case the city shall keep separate accounts for each public utility, and that the income from each service shall be used solely, for the benefit of that utility exactly as though it were an independent business enterprise; and reasonable sinking funds, requirements for improvements or extensions, the price of or charge for the service ren- dered or commodity furnished by such utility shall be lowered, to the end that the patrons of such utility shall direct- ly secure the greatest benefit of the city’s ownership thereof, and no such utility shall be so operated as to render its charge for service an indirect form of taxation. XVII. PARKS, BOULEVARDS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS. 1. The management of the parks and parkways and small parks, and of any forest preserve or outer belt park sys- tem shall be vested in a board of park commissioners consisting of nine mem- ber who shall be appointed by the mayor of the City of Chicago — three from the West Side, three from the South Side and three from the North Side; three for a term of two years, three for a term of four years, and three for a term of six years, their successors to be ap- pointed for a term of six years. Any vacancy which may occur shall be filled by appointment of the mayor, for the unexpired term. No appointment, how- ever, shall be acted upon until at a subsequent meeting of the City Coun- cil. The park commissioners shall be ap- pointed by the mayor, with the consent of two-thirds of the members of the City Council. The following paragraph was de- ferred, for consideration together with the subject of Revenue. 2. Taxes may be levied and bonds is- sued for park purposes by the City Council only upon the request of the park board; and park funds shall be paid out only upon the order of the park board. XVIII. EDUCATION. I. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCA- TION. The City of Chicago shall constitute one school district. The public school system of the city shall be under the management and control of a depart- ment of education at the head of which there shall be a Board of Education, and no power by this charter vested in the Board of Education or in any officer of the department shall be exercised by the City Council except as by this char- ter otherwise provided. II. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION. The management of the public school system of the city shall be vested in a board of education of fifteen members to be appointed by the mayor, with the approval of a majority of the City Council. All nominations of members of Board of Education by the mayor shall lie over at lea'st one week before action for confirmation or rejection thereon by the City Council. They shall serve for a term of four years, except that on the first appoint- ment of the board three members shall be chosen for one year, four for two years, four for three years, and four for four years, and annually thereafter members shall be appointed to suc- ceed those whose terms expire. The members of the Board of Educa- tion shall serve without compensation. To be eligible for appointment to the board a person shall be at least thirty years of age and a resident and citizen December 21 644 1906 of the United States and of the City of Chicago for at least five years im- mediately preceding the appointment. Section HE, with amendments, has been re-referred to the Committee on RULES, PROCEDURE and GENERAL PLAN. III. SCHOOL PROPERTY. The charter shall re-enact in sub- stance the provisions of the existing law regarding the acquisition, tenure, and disposition of property for school purposes, but no real estate shall be leased for a term longer than five years, nor shall the terms of any existing lease be altered without the concurrence of the City Council. BY MR, B. A. ECKHART: Strike out all after the word “ pur- poses,’ ’ in the fifth line, and add “but no real estate shall be leased for a term longer than five years without the con- currence of the City Council, nor shall the terms of any lease be altered with- out such concurrence. ’ ’ BY MR. EIDMANN: Amend by inserting after the word “years,” at the end of the sixth line, the following “unless with the concur- rence of the City Council by a three- fourths’ vote.” BY MR. ROSENTHAL: Amend by inserting after the word “lease,” at the end of the seventh line, the following “the unexpired term of which is longer than five years.” IV. POWERS AND ADMINISTRA- TIVE DUTIES OF THE BOARD. In addition to the powers now vested in it by law, the board of education shall have power to establish as well as maintain schools of all grades and kinds, including normal schools, schools for defectives and delinquents, schools for the blind, the deaf and the crip- I pled, schools or classes in manual train- ing, constructional and avocational teach- ing, domestic arts and physical culture, extension schools and lecture courses, and all other educational institutions and facilities. It shall have the power to co-operate with the juvenile court and to make ar- rangements with the public and other libraries and museums for the purpose of extending the privileges of the pub- lic library and museums to the attend- ants of schools and the public in the neighborhood of the schools. The board of education shall have the power to fix the school age of pupils, which in kindergartens shall not be under four years and in grade schools shall not be under six years. Action on Section V has been de- ferred pending the report of the special committee on revenue information. V. REVENUE. The charter shall preserve the provi- sions of the present law regarding the levy and collection of taxes for school purposes, except that it shall not em- body the limitation of the power to support schools to the period of nine months of the year. The provisions of the present law re- garding the care and custody of school funds shall be re-enacted. The board of education shall have power by and with the concurrence of the City Council to issue bonds to raise money for purchasing school sites and for the erection of school buildings, and provision shall be made for the pay- ment of such bonds out of the school building tax. The following sections are still pend- ing: VI. EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF THE BOARD. Rules of the board of education shall be enacted or changed, money appro- priated or expended, salaries fixed or changed, courses of instruction and text- December 21 645 1906 books adopted or changed (subject to additional provisions hereinafter con- tained), only at regular meetings of the board of education, and by a vote of the majority of the full membership of the board of education, and upon such propositions, and upon all propositions requiring for their adoption at least a majority of all the members of the board, the ayes and nays be taken and recorded. YU. OFFICERS. The board of education shall annual- ly choose one of its members as presi- dent, and one as vice-president of the board. The board shall appoint as ex- ecutive officers a superintendent of schools and a business manager, and may also appoint or provide for the ap- pointment of such other officers and employes as it may deem necessary, and shall, subject to the provisions of this charter prescribe their duties, compen- sations and terms of office, but the term of office of the superintendent of schools and of the business manager shall not be less than four years. And the sal- ary of no officer shall be lowered dur- ing his term of office. The requirement that an officer of the city shall at the time of his appoint- ment be a resident of the city, shall not apply to the superintendent of schools. The appointment and removal of the superintendent of schools, and a busi- ness manager, and of such other princi- pal officers directly appointed by the board, as the board may by general or- dinance designate, shall not be subject to the civil service law, but they shall be removable only for cause, by a vote of not less than two-thirds of all the members of the board, upon written charges to be heard by the board on due notice to the officers charged therewith, but pending the hearing of the charges, such officers may by two-thirds vote be suspended by the board. VJII. SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS. (1.) The superintendent of schools shall have a seat in the board of educa- tion, but no vote. (2.) Appointments, promotions and transfers of teachers, principals and other educational and attendance officers shall be made, and text-books and educational apparatus shall be in- troduced by the board of education up- on the recommendation of the superin- tendent, but upon his failure to make such a recommendation within a reason- able time after demand, the board may make appointments, promotions and transfers, and adopt text-books and edu- cational apparatus by a two-thirds vote of all its members, (3.) He shall be consulted as to loca- tion and plans of school buildings and as to plans and specifications for educa- tional supplies. (4.) Text-books and apparatus once adopted shall not be changed within four years after their adoption, except upon vote of not less than two-thirds of all the members of the board of educa- tion. (5.) The superintendent of schools shall nominate for appointment by the board of education, assistant and dis- trict superintendents and principals of schools, and shall have power, with the consent of the board, to remove them upon complaint and for cause. IX. THE BUSINESS MANAGER. The business manager shall have the general care and supervision of the property and the business matters of the department of education. He shall with the concurrence of the board of education appoint his subordi- nate officers and employes, among whom there shall be a trained architect and a trained engineer. In matters affecting the general poli- cy of his administration he shall be subject to the direction of the board. December 21 646 1906 X. APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS, ETC. (1.) Appointments, promotions and transfers of teachers shall be made for merit only, and after satisfactory ser- vice for a probationary period of three years, appointments of teachers and principals shall become permanent, sub- ject to removal for cause upon written charges, but the board need not retain in service more principals or teachers than the needs of the schools require. (2.) The standing of teachers for appointment and promotion shall be en- trusted to a bord to be constituted by the board of education, of which the su- perintendent of schools shall be the head. XI. COMPULSORY EDUCATION. The maximum age of compulsory school attendance shall be increased from fourteen to sixteen. But the children between the ages of fourteen years and sixteen shall not be required to attend school for such time during said years as they may be in good faith engaged in regular employment not less than five hours daily for not less than five days in each week. XII. PENSIONS. The Board of Education may, and with the co-operation and consent of the City Council, establish a permanent pen- sion system for teachers, principals and other employes of the Board of Educa- tion. It may be maintained in part from the public funds to be provided by the city, and in part by voluntary, fixed and proportionate contributions, to be retained from the salaries of teachers and principals. The pension system, as now administered, shall continue until the same is organized for administra- tion under and by virtue of the provi- sions hereof. XIII. REPORT AND EXAMINA- TION OF ACCOUNTS. The mayor shall, as often as yearly, and may as often as semi-annually ap- point certified public accountants, to ex- amine and audit the accounts of the Board of Education, and the report thereof, together with any recommenda- tion of such accountants, as to change in the business methods of the board, or of any of its departments, officers, or employes, shall be made to the mayor and to the Board of Education, and be spread upon the records of the latter. The expenses of such audit shall be paid by the board. BY MR, RITTER: The charter shall provide that no po- lice station, fire engine house or patrol barn shall hereafter be built within 400 feet of any school building. XIX. LIBRARY. 1. The management of the public library shall be vested in a board of nine library directors, constituted as at present, and with the present powers and duties, except as herein otherwise provided. 2. The term of office of members of the library board shall be six years, three retiring every two years. 3. The library board may establish branch libraries and reading rooms, sub- ject to the approval of the City Coun- cil. XX. PENAL, CHARITABLE AND REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS. 1. The charter shall grant to the city, in addition to the powers which it has now: a. Authority to maintain alms- houses. b. Authority to maintain free lodg- ing houses, and free employment bu- reaus in connection therewith. c. Authority to maintain creches for infants. d. Authority to maintain training schools for dependent and indigent children. December 21 647 1906 2. The city shall have the power to contract with the county of Cook or otherwise provide for the detentions, housings and care of indigent persons, prisoners, or dependent or delinquent children. This section shall contain a clause that the City of Chicago can contract with the county of Cook for the erec- tion and maintenance of a Juvenile Court building. XXI. INITIATIVE AND REFEREN- DUM. The charter shall provide that any or- dinance granting any franchise or the use of any street or alley or space below as well as above the level of the sur- face of the streets, alleys and other public places for any public utility, shall not go into effect until sixty (60) days after the passage thereof, and if within that time twenty (20) per cent, of the voters of the city petition for the submission of such ordinance to popular vote at the next succeeding general or special election, such ordinance shall not go into effect until and unless at such election it shall have been ap- proved by a majority of the voters vot- ing upon the question. XXII. RELATION OF THE CHAR- TER TO OTHER LAWS, AND AMENDMENTS TO CHARTER. The following section has been re- ferred to the LAW COMMITTEE for an opinion as to its constitutionality. 1. Any act of the general assembly that shall be passed after the adoption of this charter relating to the govern- ment or the affairs of the cities of the state or of cities containing a stated number of inhabitants or over shall be construed as not applying to the City of Chicago. 2. The charter shall re-enact the pro- visions (not inconsistent with these res- olutions) of the existing laws applicable to the government of the City of Chi- cago, and shall vest in the City Council power to amend such of these provisions as the charter may specify. The following sections have been re- ferred to the LAW COMMITTEE for an opinion as to their constitutionality: 3. The City Council shall have power to amend any part of this charter with the approval of three-fifths of those voting at the proposed change at any election, provided that the tax rate established by this charter shall not be increased nor the twenty-year limit on franchise be altered [extended], nor the municipal court act amended, nor any provision be made for the exercise of any power not strictly local or munici- pal in its character. 4. The charter shall make provision for submission to popular vote of amendments to the charter, proposed by a petition of per cent, of the voters of the city, such proposed amendments to become part of the charter when ap- proved by a majority of the votes cast at the election (or: upon the question). Provided, that in this manner the tax rate established by this charter shall not be increased, nor the twenty-year limit on franchises be altered, nor the municipal court act amended, nor any provision be made for the exercise of any power not strictly local or munici- pal in its character. 5. Nothing in this act shall be con- strued to modify, impair or affect or to confer upon the City Council power to pass any ordinance modifying, impair- ing or conflicting with the provisions of Section 18 of an act entitled “An act to provide for the annexation of cities, incorporated towns and villages or parts of same to cities, incorporated towns and villages’ ’ approved April 25th, 1889. December 21 648 1006 Resolutions offered from the floor of the Convention, but not acted upon. BY. ME. SHEPARD: Resolved, That in any act providing for the formation and disbursement of the police pension fund the following provision be incorporated: That the members of the police de- partment to be included in the bene- fits of such pension fund shall be as follows: The General Superintendent of Po- lice, Assistant General Superintendent of Police, Inspectors, Captains, Lieu- tenants, Sergeants, Patrolmen, Patrol Drivers, Superintendent of Horses, Su- perintendent of Construction, Superin- tendent Bureau of Identification, As- sistant Superintendent Bureau of Iden- tification, Secretary of the Police De- partment, Private Secretary to the Gen- eral Superintendent of Police, Police Custodian Stolen Property, Chief Clerk Secretary’s office, Clerk in Secretary’s office, Chief Clerk in Detective Bu- reau, Chief Operator, Assistant Chief Operator, Operators, Drillmaster, Chief Matron, Matrons, Feed Inspector, De- partment Printer, Vehicle Inspectors, Photographer, Assistant Photographer, Stenographers, Supply Drivers, Finger Print Expert a'nd such other mem- bers as may hereafter be provided for by ordinance. BY MR. BENNETT: Resolved, that the present laws re- lating to firemen’s pensions be retained and included in the charter. BY MESSRS WERNO AND ROSEN- THAL: Chapter 7, section 1, alternative 1. In addition to all the legislative powers now conferred upon it by the general cities and villages act and the amendments thereof, the charter shall vest in the city council the power to regulate the legal observance of the weekly day of rest, commonly called Sunday; and the sale of liquors by bona fide athletic, charitable, edu- cational, fraternal, musical and social associations, corporations and societies at social gatherings, or entertainments conducted or held by them only; and in general all powers of local legisla- tion which may under the constitution be vested in a municipality. BY MR. BROWN: Permission shall not be given to any person to retail any goods, fruit or vegetables from a wagon or other vehicl-*. BY MR. SNOW: Amend proposition 1, Section 16, Pub- lic Utilities, by striking out all after the word “city” in line 11, and insert- ing in lieu thereof the following: “also to docks and wharves.” BY MR. TAYLOR: A permanent educational commission of advisory capacity shall be appointed bv the mayor with the approval of the council, to consist of seventeen mem- bers, who shall serve without compensa- tion, including the superintendent of December 21 649 1906 the public schools and the librarian of the public library, who shall be mem- bers ex officio. Each other member shall hold office until another person is ap- pointed to succeed him. It shall be the function of the educa- tional commission to tender advice and recommendations regarding the public school system of the city to correlate the educational forces of the city and to prevent unnecessary duplication of ac- tivities by exercising their influence to- word co-ordinating the various educa- tional and scientific institutions of the city. BY MR. LATHROP: Amend Section 1, of XYI, by adding the following words: Provided, However, that the city shall not have power to operate such public utility works by virtue of any- thing in this section contained. BY MR. SHEDD: Resolved, That in cases where a po- lice officer, in the actual discharge of his duty, is charged with an offense, such as murder, manslaughter, or other serious charge, or charges, that the Common Council shall appropriate a sufficient fund for attorney’s fees to the end that such officer shall be prop- erly represented in court, and the truth of said allegations brought out. BY MR. VOPICKA: RESOLVED: That the City of Chi- cago be given power in condemnation proceedings to make the assessments for benefits payable in such number of annual installments as the City Coun- cil shall by ordinance determine, not to exceed twenty in number, and to issue bonds for the anticipation of such assessments payable out of the pro- ceeds of the collection thereof, and to sell such bonds at not less than par, for the creation of a special fund to be used in the payment of the awards for property taken or damaged through such condemnation proceedings. BY MR. VOPICKA: Resolved: That the City of Chicago shall have power to appropriate and set aside out of the moneys received through general taxation or from mis- cellaneous sources, as a special fund to be used only for the repair or re- pavement of such streets as have been paved by special assessment since July 1, 1901, and such streets as shall here- after be so paved. BY MR. VOPICKA: Resolved: That the City of Chicago shall have power to create a special fund to be used for the purpose of guaranteeing the prompt payment at maturity of all special assessment bonds of the City of Chicago issued since January 1, 1903. BY MR. VOPICKA: Resolved: That the City of Chicago shall have power to levy assessments for improvements according to the pres- ent Special Assessment law with the lollowing amendment: In cases where the amount of an assessment for widening or opening of a street or streets exceeds the sum of $500,000, then the assessment is to be divided in the following manner: 10 per cent, of the amount to be levied on the property facing the streets where the improvement is made and 90 per cent, of the assessment to be levied pro rata on all the real estate property in Chicago. Report of Committee on Rules, Pro- cedure and General Plan — B. A. Eck- hart, Chairman. CHICAGO CHARTER CONVENTION, Gentlemen: Your committee on December 21 650 1906 Rules, Procedure and General Plan, to whom were referred the following res- olutions which were introduced for consideration at the meeting of Decem- ber 14th, 1906, XIII. PROPERTY. 2. The city may so acquire property outside of as well as within the city limits for any municipal purpose. Also an amendment offered by Mr. Shanahan: * * * that the city may acquire property by purchase outside as well as within the city limits for any mu- nicipal purpose, and not have the right to condemn outside property. Also an amendment offered by Mr. Brown: The city may acquire property out- side of the city, or purchase and con- demn property for municipal purposes within the city. Also an amendment offered by Mr. B. A. Eckhart: The city may acquire property out- side as well as within the city limits, either by purchase or condemnation, for park and boulevard purposes. would respectfully report that the com- mittee has considered the subject-mat- ter, and recommends the adoption of the following: The city may acquire by purchase outside as well as within the city limits for any municipal purpose, and may acquire property outside of the city limits by purchase or condemnation for park, boulevard or forest preserve pur- poses. Respectfully submitted, B. A. ECKHART, Chairman. BY MR. PENDARYIS: Resolved, That the charter shall con- tain a provision preserving the integ- rity of prohibition districts established by ordinance of the city, and providing that the City Council shall have no power to modify or abolish any such prohibition district until the proposi- tion to so modify or abolish any such district shall, upon a petition of not less than 20 per cent, of the legal voters then residing within any such district, be submitted to and be ap- proved by a majority of all the legal voters residing within such prohibition district. BY MR. SHEDD: Resolved, That the charter shall con- tain a provision that no employe of the city shall become or continue to remain a member of any society or organiza- tion, obedience or allegiance to whose rules, principles or practices shall re- quire or impose any express or implied obligation upon such employe to refrain from the full discharge of his duties or to do any act against the government of the city, or in violation of any ordi- nance or law, or of any rule or regula- tion of any department of the city, or of any order of any official of the city or of any of its departments. For any violation of this provision an employe shall be at once discharged from the city service by the head of the de- partment in which he is employed. BY MR. WILKINS: Upon the adoption of this charter, the Board of Education shall prepare or cause to be prepared, a code of morals, non-sectarian in character and tenor, and put the same into book form, to be used as one of the text books of the public schools and taught in all the branches of the same. BY MR. WILKINS: During the life of this charter and while it operates as the Constitution of the Municipality of Chicago, the children in the public schools shall not be segregated or separated in the rooms and classes on account of their nation- ality, race or color. December 21 651 1906 BY ME. EIDMANN : Resolved, That no appointment by the mayor shall be made unless concurred in by the City Council at a subsequent meeting. BY MR. WERNO: Reconsider the vote by which para- graph 3, Section IT, on page 593, pro- viding that ‘ ‘ members of the Board of Education shall serve without compen- sation ’ ’ was passed for the purpose of submitting the following as a substi- tute for said paragraph: Paragraph 3. Section II. The members of the Board of Educa- tion shall be paid such compensation as the City Council may by ordinance provide. SPECIAL ORDERS SECTION XVII. — Education (Saturday, December 22, at 2 o’clock p. m.). PARAGRAPH 3. — Suffrage, at page 52. (To be taken up immediately after the disposition of the subject of Education.) CORRECTIONS. BY MR. SHANAHAN: Page 531, first column, eleventh line, substitute “1904” for “1894”. Also, strike out “that” in twentieth line. Also, substitute “they” for “we” in seventh line of second remarks on this page. Also, strike out “I think you can make them with these municipalities” in the first, second and third lines from bottom. Also, at page 584 second column, strike out “that that question” in third line of remarks. December 21 652 1906 RESOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO AMENDMENT OF STATE CONSTITUTION Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Illinois, the Senate concurring there: in That there shall be submitted to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection at the next election of members of the General Assem- bly, a proposition to amend the Constitution of this State as follows: Resolved, That Article IV of the Constitution • of this State be amended by ading thereto a section to be numbered and known as Section 34, and reading as follows, to-wit: Section 34. The General Assembly shall have power, subject to the condi- tions and limitations hereinafter contained to pass any law (local, special or general) providing a scheme or charter of local municipal government for thet territory now or hereafter embraced within the limits of the City of Chicago. The law or laws so passed may provide for consolidating (in whole or in part) in the municipal government of the City of Chicago, the powers now vested in the city, board of education, township, park and other local governments and authorities having jurisdiction confined to or within said territory, or any part thereof, and for the assumption by the City of Chicago of the debts and liabilities (in whole or in part) of the governments or corporate authorities whose functions within its territory shall be vested in said City of Chicago and may/ authorize said city in the event of its becoming liable for the indebtedness of two or more of the existing municipal corporations lying wholly within said City of Chicago, to become indebted to an amount (including its existing indebtedness and the indebtedness of all municipal corporations lying wholly within the limits of said city, and said city’s proportionate share of the indebtedness of said county and sanitary district which share shall be determined in such manner as the General Assembly shall prescribe) in its aggregate not exceeding five per centum of the full value of the taxable property within its limits as ascertained by the last assessment either for State or municipal purposes previous to the incurring of such indebtedness (but no new bonded indebtedness, other than for refunding purposes, shall be incurred until the proposition therefor shall be consented to by a majority of the legal voters of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special) ; and may provide for the assessment of property and the levy and collection of taxes within said city for corporate purposes in accordance with the principles of equality and uniformity prescribed by this Constitution; and may abolish all offices, the functions of which shall be otherwise provided for; and may provide for the annexation of territory to or disconnection of territory from said City of Chicago by the consent of a majority of the legal voters (voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special) of the said city and of a majority of the voters of such territory, voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special, and in case the General Assembly shall create municipal courts in the City of Chicago it may abolish the offices of Justices of the Peace, Police Magistrates and Constables in and for the territory within said city and may limit the jursi diction of Justices of the Peace in the territory of said County of Cook outside of said city to that territory, and in such case the jurisdiction and practice of said municipal courts shall be such as the General Assembly shall prescribe; and the December 21 653 1906 General Assembly may pass all laws which it may deem requisite to effectually provide a complete system of local municipal government in and for the City of Chicago. No law based upon this amendment to the Constitution, affecting the municipal government of the City of Chicago, shall take effect until such law shall be con- sented to by a majority of the legal voters of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special; and no local or special law based upon this amendment affecting specially any part of the City of Chicago shall take effect until consented to by a majority of the legal voters of such part of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special. Nothing in this section contained shall be construed to repeal, amend or affect Section Four (4) of Article XI of the Constitution of this State. Adopted by the House, April 22, 1903. Concurred in by the Senate, April 22, 1903. PROCEEDINGS OP THE Chicago Charter Convention CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER SATURDAY, [DECEMBER 22, 1906 (fttlinigo (Ihartrr (Eonurntian Convened, December 12 , 1900 Headquarter* 171 WASHINGTON STREET TELEPHONE MAIN 4677 Milton i . Foreman Chairman Alexander h. Revell, . . Vice-Chairman M. L. McKinley Secretary Henry Barrett Chamberlin, asst. Secy December 22 657 1906 PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Regular Meeting, Saturday, December 22, 1906 2:00 O’clock P. M., in the City Council Chamber OFFICIAL RECORD Published by authority of the Chicago Charter Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: The Convention will be in order and the Secretary will call the roll. Present — Foreman, Chairman, and Beebe, Bennett, Brosseau, Brown, Ca- rey, Church, Cole, Crilly, Ritter, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Erickson, Gansbergen, Guer- in, Hill, Hoyne, Jones, Kittleman, Lath- rop, Linehan, MacMillan, McGoorty, McKinley, Merriam, O’Donnell, Oehne, Owens, Patterson, Pendarvis, Post, Raymer, Revell, Rosenthal, Sethness, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Snow, Sun- ny, Swift, Taylor, Vopicka, Werno, White, Wilkins, Zimmer — 49. Absent — Badenoch, Baker, Beilfuss, Burke, Clettenberg, Dever, Dixon, T. J., Fisher, Fitzpatrick, Graham, Haas, Harrison, Hunter, Lundberg, McCor- mick, Paullin, Powers, Rainey, Rinaker, Robins, Smulski, Thompson, Walker, Wilson, Young — 25. THE CHAIRMAN: Corrections to the minutes will be handed to the Sec- retary and they will stand approved as the minutes of the last meeting. The Secretary will now read Section 6, page 644. The Secretary then read Section 6 on page 644. (Cries of “Question.”) THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor of the adoption of this section will signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. It is carried. The Secretary will now read No. 7. The Secretary then read No. 7, con- tained on page 645, as follows: MR. JONES: I move that we adopt the first sentence of No. 7, reading ‘ ‘ The Board of Education shall annual- ly choose one of its members as presi- dent and one as vice-president of the board. ” THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion, that the first sentence of Section 7 shall be adopted. As many as favor that signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. It is carried, and that sentence is adopted. December 22 658 1906 The second part reads: “The board shall appoint as executive officers a su- perintendent of schools and a business manager, and may also appoint or pro- vide for the appointment of such other officers and employes as it may deem necessary, and shall, subject to the pro- visions of this charter, prescribe their duties, compensations and terms of office, but the term of office of the su- perintendent of schools and of the busi- ness manager shall not be less than four years. ” What do you want to do with that section? MR. SWIFT: I move its adoption. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion. As many as favor it will signify by saying aye. ' " MR. RITTER: I have an amendment to offer. The amendment is more or" less technical, and provides the substi- tution' of the word ‘ 1 education ’ ’ for ■ ““Schools, VI. making a similar substitu- tion wherever the words “superintend- ent of sclfools” occur throughout the report, so that the title shall read “su- perintendent of education.” This is in accordance with modern practice wher- ever schools are divided into two heads, a business head and an educational . head, and used in the St. Louis law and others, and I move the adoption of the amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state the question. Mr. Ritter moves that the term “superintendent of schools:” shall read “superintendent of education” wherever it appears. MR. JONES: I do not wish to speak on that. I will speak after that motion ■ is put. THE CHAIRMAN: What is that, sir? MR. .TONES: I will speak after that motion is put. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor of the amendment say aye. Op- posed, no. The amendment is carried. The matter is before the house in the amended form. MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, this provides that there shall be a superin- tendent of education and a business manager, and I presume that these two officers will be the heads of their re- spective departments. The original committee report, as I recollect, pro- vided also that the board might ap- point an attorney, and a secretary, and an auditor, and I understand that the way this provision is drawn, these three officer^ are included under the expres- sion “other officers,” and they will not be excluded. I would like to ask the chairman of the committee if that is the purpose of it. MR. TAYLOR: Yes, sir; that is the fact. Our purpose was to make all the business administration — to put all the business administration under one responsible officer. MR. POST: Mr. President, I wish — as a basis of what I have to say, I move to strike out all after the words, “compensations and terms of office,” about two-thirds of the way down the first paragraph. I understand that this particular motion includes only those two first paragraphs. Am I correct about that, or does it include the three? MR. J. W. ECKHART: It includes the whole. MR. POST: Includes the whole? MR. J. W. -ECKHART: Yes, sir. MR. POST: Then I also move to strike out the last paragraph. THE CHAIRMAN: After the words MR. POST: The whole of the last paragraph, I think. MR. COLE: For what reason? MR. SHEPARD: That it is not be- fore the house. MR. POST: That is what I asked. THE CHAIRMAN: We are consider- ing the first paragraph of Section 7 at this time. It is divided. December 22 6S9 1906 ME. POST: Then the second and the third are not under consideration? THE CHAIEMAN: No. ME. POST: The second and third are not? THE CHAIEMAN: No, sir. ME. POST: Very good. Then I move to strike out the whole of the sec- ond paragraph — the second section THE CHAIEMAN : What is your motion? ME. POST: I desire to strike out all of the words in the first paragraph which we are considering solely, as I understand it; all of the words which follow the words 1 ‘compensations and terms of office. ’ ’ In other words, I would strike out, “but the term of office of the superintendent of educa- tion and of the business manager shall not be less than four years. And the salary of no officer shall be lowered during his term of office. ” My ob- jection applies as well to the last para- graph, and I might as well consider them both as one. THE CHAIEMAN: We will consider them both as before the house. ME. POST: They are both before the house, but not for vote. THE CHAIEMAN: Yes. ME. POST: Now, I am not going to oppose in this body the adoption of this clause. I simply want to state my position in regard to that and to explain why I wish to vote against them. We have heard a great deal here about the importance of having a re- sponsible board of education. Now, if you are going to have a — if you are going to make your board of education responsible you cannot do that if you enable a majority to place two officers in charge of the school system beyond the power of any but two-thirds of the board to remove them for four years, in the absence of positive cause, — in the absence of cause sufficient to con- vict them of dereliction of duties. If it is the desire of this conference — this Charter Convention, I mean — and the legislature and the people of this city to turn over the school sys- tem on its educational side to a super- intendent of education, and on its busi- ness side to a business manager, then let us do it openly and above board, and let us reconsider the clause in the report which we refused to adopt, that clause in the report which did undertake to place the school system under the head of these two managements. Let us not do it in this indirect manner. Let us go to the people of Chicago with the plain statement that it is our pur- pose and the purpose of the Legislature of the State of Illinois to turn over the school system to two men for four years, practically without responsibility to anybody. If that is what you want to do, then let us do it directly and openly and above board. Let us not do it in this indirect way, namely, by providing for a board of education and requiring that board by a majority to elect two men to whom the affairs of the school sys- tem shall be turned over, requiring them to elect these two men for four years and preventing anything short of a two-thirds vote from disciplining those two men in any way, from re- moving them or reducing their salaries during the whole period of time for which they are employed. A good deal has been said about a business administration of the board be- ing desired. I think that much might be said on the other side with refer- ence to that, but I will not undertake to discuss that now. I doubt, Mr. President, if it would be regarded as a business method of administering the affairs of any corporation to provide that the board of directors select the manager or two managers of the whole business corporation, should elect them by a majority vote of the directors for four years and place them in office in such manner as respects tenure that December 22 660 1906 they cannot be disturbed without a two- thirds vote, and then only upon charges of dereliction of duty of which they «hall be convicted. I submit that that is not even a business method — at least I doubt it; I do not stand here as a business man, and perhaps some of the business men here may be able to show us it is a business method. However, my point and the essence of my point is not that we ought not to turn the affairs of the school system over to these two men, but whether we should do it openly and directly, or do it indirectly. I am in favor, if we do it at all, of doing it directly. I am not in favor of establishing a board which shall elect two officers and then virtual- ly deprive that board of all responsi- bility for the actions of those officers for anything short .of dereliction of duty proved against them. Mr. Chairman, I move at this stage to strike out those words in the first paragraph, and I shall ask leave to strike out the final paragraph when it is in order. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, there is some force in the criticisms made by Mr. Post. It might be very embarrass- ing to a board of education under cer- tain circumstances, for instance, in a case of financial stringency, not to be able to reduce the salaries within rea- sonable limitations of high paid officials. On the other hand, we must remember that to leave this wholly at the mercy of the board of education is always to make it possible, always to leave the possibility in existence of a board of ■education evading the evident wise in- tention of this paragraph by simply starving a man out of office, by reducing his salary to a point where he can no longer possibly accept it. Now, such a situation is quite possible. I should prefer, Mr. Chairman, that instead of striking that clause out al- together we should have some modifying clause inserted there which should make it possible to reduce the salary of a superintendent, for instance, or a busi- ness manager in something of a pro rata cut, or what we call a horizontal cut; that is, if the situation arises finan- cially when the board of education must cut salaries, as it might happen in order to save itself from bankruptcy and to keep inside of the law of this state which prohibits us from spending more money than comes in from the three different sources, — and the city is not liable for a dollar in any way, shape or manner that we contract be- yond that, — times arise when a horizon- tal cut is almost an absolute necessity, and we must be prepared for them; they have happened in the past and they are very liable to happen within a year under our present arrangement. Now, that a superintendent or business manager should simply stand the pro rata cut with all other employes, in- cluding the teachers, if necessary to extend it to teachers, is a perfectly fair proposition. I have not framed this amendment, but my suggestion would be that we modify that by inserting some such clause that the business manager or su- perintendent should be included in this reduction of compensation, but that it should be in the form of a horizontal cut. I should be glad to put that in form, or have some of my lawyer friends do it. I think it would certainly meet Mr. Post’s suggestion. MR. POST: No, it would not. DR. WHITE: Well, I would still be in favor of it. One word more: I agree with Mr. Post as to the two-thirds vote in the matter of removal. I believe as long as you entrust all other affairs, prac- tically, of the board of education to a majority, vote, you can well afford to en- trust the tenure of office of superintend- ent of instruction and of business man- ager to a similar majority. I am opposed to that two-thirds quali- December 22 661 1906 fixation; I am in favor of a majority vote, and I shall offer before this mat- ter is over an amendment covering the point of pro rata cutting of these two officers, as I have suggested. MR. MacMILLAN: I think, as a matter of procedure, Mr. Chairman, that we might get at this a little more directly and rapidly by dividing the first paragraph. The latter part of the first paragraph contains two propo- sitions, one as to the term of office of the superintendent and business man- ager, and one respecting the changing of salaries, and I would suggest as an amendment to Mr. Post’s amendment that we adopt the second sentence up to and including the words “and terms of office.” That is to say, “compensa- tions and terms of office,” that we adopt up to that point, because at that point begins the discussion and enter the difficulties which we are now dis- cussing. MR. POST: I think that that should not be an amendment; I think it should be a course of procedure. THE CHAIRMAN: I understand, Mr. Post, there is no objection to the adoption of the first clause up to the words “terms of office.” As many as favor the adoption of that signify by saying aye. MR. RITTER: I was writing out an amendment to that part of the section, the first part, and with one word more here I can hand it to the clerk. MR. WHITE: In the meantime, may we have Mr. MacMillan’s amendment read again, or stated again? THE CHAIRMAN: Why, the ques- tion apparently by unanimous consent, before the house, is upon the adoption of this section, reading, “The board shall appoint as executive officers a su- perintendent of schools and a business manager, and may also appoint or pro- i vide for the appointment of such other officers and employes as it may deem j necessary, and shall, subject to the pro- j visions of this charter, prescribe their duties, compensations and terms of of- fice. ’ ’ MR. MacMILLAN: That eliminates entirely the two questions as to the terms of office of the superintendent and business manager, and the salaries. (Cries of “Question.”) MR. RITTER: I desire to offer this as a substitute for the pending motion and amendment. THE CHAIRMAN : Let the Secre- tary read it. THE SECRETARY: “By Mr. Rit- ter: Strike out the words following ‘ appoint ’ in the fourth line of Section 7 to ‘such’ in line 8, and the word ‘other’ following the word ‘such,’ so that the sentence shall read: ‘The board shall appoint such officers and em- ployes as it may deem necessary, and shall, subject to the provisions of this charter, prescribe their duties, compen- sations and terms of office.’ ” MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman MR. RITTER: Mr. Chairman THE CHAIRMAN: Do you desire to speak on your amendment, Mr. Rit- ter? MR. RITTER: Very briefly. It seems to me that with all the care that is to be exercised in the appointment of the board of education, they should be free to act under a charter and not under a code. I believe that it is really not the province of this body at this time to say what officers or employes the board of education should have. If you will go back to the last meeting of the edu- cation committee, which presumably spent some time in investigating this matter, and also back to the report sent in by the committee from the Mer- chants’ Club, you will readily see that the report or substitute report now be- fore you does not agree with either of those. At the time the committee met they were quite sure that the board should have five or six officers, ancKtho Merchants’ Club likewise, as I remom- December 22 662 1906 ber it, agreed that there should be five or six head officials or department heads. I will admit that I was somewhat re- sponsible for the change in the two de- partments. That is, combining all the officers under a business manager, being present at that meeting. But since that time I have consulted with some peo- ple. We are making a business investi- gation of the board, and in the pre- liminary negotiations I find that even many people who are well versed in business system, experts along those lines, are hardly agreed as to an institu- tion like the board of education having all its business affairs under one man. My experience in reference to that con- vinces me that as we are in the way of handling affairs of a board varying ac- cording to different business conditions; that it is not wise to be hamstrung, as it were, by a statute which prohibits changes which go to its better ef- ficiency. I believe if the charter pro- vided for a good board of education that you should leave it to that board to provide all the officers, and all the of- ficials who should handle its business. For that reason I will vote for the amendment. MB. JONES: As I understand Mr. Bitter’s amendment, it provides that there shall be no charter officers in the educational system except members of the Board of Education. It leaves them free at any time to provide such officers and to assign to them such duties as they may wish. I am opposed to that. I believe there should be two charter officers. I believe that the secretary, the auditor and the attorney should not be charter officers, but I do believe that there should be two distinctly executive officers in connection with the school system; that one of those men should be at the head of the educational system, and that the other should be at the head of the business administration of the school system. Now, the clause as originally present- ed by Dr. Taylor makes the superin- tendent of education a charter officer; it makes the business manager a char- ter officer; and those officers become offi- cers of some considerable dignity be- cause they are established by some or- ganic law — the same organic law that establishes the Board of Education. Now, I believe that just as we have in our city a method by which the City Council as a legislative body and an ad- ministrative, so in our educational sys- tem we should have a legislative body on the Board of Education. In the city we have a mayor with his various heads of departments. So, we should recog- nize the administrative feature of the school system. Of course, our Board of Education has more of executive function than the City Council, per- haps; but I believe we should recognize this executive head in the charter. I understand this provision is modeled after the St. Louis charter, which pro- vides for a superintendent of educa- tion and a superintendent of schools who is practically the business man- ager. I believe those are the only char- ter officers established, and I believe it will be found as we proceed we will prescribe the duties in a general way of the superintendent of education and the duties of the business manager,, which, I submit, are very important. I believe that these two departments should be absolutely distinct. Moreover, it will be found in a later provision that we will divide the funds of the school system into a business fund and an educational fund. I believe that heads of departments should be recognized as distinct heads, just as we recognize the distinction in the division of the funds; and I believe the best re- sults will be secured by making those two officers charter officers, and not merely appointees of the board, as Mr. Bitter’s amendment would make them. MB. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, the St. Louis charter which Senator Jones re- December 22 663 1906 ferred to provides for four charter heads or officials — a superintendent of construction, a commissioner of build- ings, a secretary and treasurer, and an auditor. Now, I am opposed to Mr. Rit- ter’s amendment, because I agree with Senator Jones that the dignity and im- portance of the position demand that he be a charter officer. It has been a curious anomaly in the educational affairs of Chicago that while the city laws provide, I think, without a single exception, for a superintendent of accounting as a statutory officer, that there has never been any recognition in a statute of so important a function as that of superintendent of schools. I believe that the majority of educational people will agree that an office of that importance in a city of the size of Chi- cago should be made statutory, or, in this case, a charter office. I do not happen to recall now any sin- gle instance of a school system — certain- ly none that has been modeled on later forms in the country — where the super- intendent of schools is not recognized by statute or by charter. Whatever else you should do, it seems to me, after some years of experience and some care- ful study of the whole situation, we ought not to crowd out the superintend- ent from the position of being a char- ter officer. I think that a position of that dignity and character should be recognized in the charter of the city, and I am opposed, chiefly on that ac- count, to Mr. Ritter’s amendment. MR. REVELL: Mr. Chairman, I think that this entire section must be properly considered together, notwith- standing the fact that we are only con- sidering practically one sentence, or a portion of a paragraph. I think that the last paragraph of the section must be considered in addition, though we may take up this matter paragraph by paragraph. I believe that the report of the committee, worked out after many meetings, worked out after thor- ough consideration and investigation with educators, should be adopted, with- out change, unless it should be that change suggested by Dr. White, which, in effect, would mean that if there is any general reduction in salary in the school system of the City of Chicago that those who are fortunate enough to occupy higher offices, and who are get- ting a larger salary, should share in that general reduction. It seems to me to be a wise provision to include that here, because that is one of the things that make a great deal of trouble throughout the rank and file of the schools when a reduction is likely to come. MR. RAYMER: May I ask Mr. Re- vell a question? Will that same argu- ment apply to the mayor and the cor- poration counsel as well? MR. RE YELL: Not necessarily; this entire school system ought to be taken altogether. I believe that the main business that we have to establish is stability and tenure of office. MR. RAYMER: I meant in regard to reduction of salary, Mr. Revell. MR. REVELL: No, I am not ready to admit that it should apply in the case of the mayor. But I say again, and repeat, that the entire educational sys- tem should be taken as one system, from the superintendent down to the lowest priced teacher in your schools; and whenever you do anything to affect the income of the individuals employed by the Board of Education, it should affect all. I remember this matter came up when I was a member of the Board of Educa- tion, and it was one of the matters that caused more trouble than anything else. We endeavored to do something regard- ing the salaries of some of the teach- ers, and nothing could or would be done with those salaries which were the large salaries of the system. MR. SHEPARD: What year was that? December 22 664 1906 MR. RE YELL: How? MR. SHEPARD: What year was that? MR. REVELL: That was somewhere between 1892 and 1896. It came in at the time of the depression. The Board of Education ran very low in its finances. Now, Mr. Chairman, there is a vast difference, it seems to me, between the Board of Education and a private busi- ness or corporation, as suggested by my friend, Mr. Post. MR. POST: I beg pardon. Allow me to interrupt. I did not suggest they are alike. On the contrary, there are gen- tlemen who did suggest that they are alike. MR. REYELL: I understood the gen- tleman mentioned the fact, or thought it was not going to be good business, that the Board of Education should be put upon the same basis in regard to the superintendent as a business house. Now, when a business house changes its su- perintendent, the policy of the business house continues exactly the same. The superintendent may bring in some new ideas which the old superintendent was not familiar with because he had not sufficiently advanced ideas of the busi- ness. But the general policy of the business establishment is continued. Now, whenever the Board of Education shall come to the time where it will wish to dispense with the services of the superintendent of education it would be because of something radically wrong with that superintendent of education. And the reason for the committee’s de- sire to have stability as far as tenure of office is concerned, was that the Board of Education would assume a great responsibility therein in the se- lection of the superintendent of educa- tion. Before that superintendent was elected they would go into a man’s rec- ord, his education and everything con- nected with him very thoroughly before he would receive the appointment. I am satisfied, my friends, that the peo- ple of the City of Chicago want to feel that the educational system of our city is established over a period of years, that it will not be subject to rad- ical changes on the part of every board that comes in. I also desire, while I am on my feet, to oppose the idea that Dr. White pre- sented to permit the removal of either of these charter officers by a majority vote of the Board of Education. I be- lieve that should be left exactly as it is in the section. The entire section provides that it should be something very important that would justify the removal of either of these important officials, and you can readily see that under a majority vote of the board only eight men would be required to remove either one of those officials. I doubt if that would be a wise thing to do. But, gentlemen, with that exception — if Dr. White would present an amendment in some way in writing, I would be very glad to vote in favor of that, but other- wise I would like to have this entire section, as it stands. MR. RAYMER: I would like to ask Mr. Revell a question. MR. RE YELL: Certainly. MR. RAYMER : Supposing, Mr. Revell, that the Board of Education in its wisdom should decide upon a certain gentleman for the position of superin- tendent or business manager; in order to get his services it will be necessary to pay him a stipulated salary. Do you think it would be fair to this man if he accepted the position — assume that the salary would be five or ten thousand dollars a year as the case might be — that he should take into consideration that he might during the term of his engagement have his salary reduced. Do you think that would be good business judgment? MR. REVELL: Is that the ques- tion? MR. RAYMER: Yes, sir. December 22 665 1906 MR. REVELL: I certainly do think it would be good business judgment; be- fore any new superintendent would be employed he should be confronted with this section, if we pass it in that way, and his attention should be called to the fact that his salary would be lowered only if there would be a general reduc- tion, caused by an unusual emergency; then he and the other large salaried offi- cials would merely share with all other officials and teachers in the public school system. He would not accept the office unless he were satisfied in this case. MR. RAYMER: Do you think, Mr. Revell, if that proposition were sub- mitted to a particular individual whom the board might desire to engage that it would have a tendency to create a de- sire on that gentleman's part to accept the position, under those circumstances? MR. REVELL: I do not believe it would make the slightest difference with the gentleman. If it did, he would compute the difference, and if he were asking $5,000 a year it is barely pos- sible he might say, ‘‘Well, I have to take some chance there of a possible re- duction of 5 per cent, or 10 per cent, in case that were adopted by the Board of Education; I believe, therefore, my salary should be made $5,500 a year," or he might say $6,000 a year, it is possible. These things occur in busi- ness enterprises and are met when- ever the situation arises as presented by Alderman Raymer. MR. RAYMER: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me, if we should adopt a prop- osition of that sort it would be in a measure tying the hands of the board. Tf we should engage a man — if I should engage a man to serve me at a stipu- lated salary for a period of years, I should expect to pay all that I had agreed to pay. I do not know of any arrangement that T could enter into with a man on a commercial basis that wonld work automatically up or down. I question very much if I could conduct my business successfully by that sort of an arrangement. I think if we should adopt this proposition we would be in a measure tying the hands of the board, and personally I am very much opposed to it. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon Mr. Ritter 's amendment to the sec- ond part of Section 10, “The board shall appoint such officers and employes as it may deem necessary, and shall, subject to the provisions of this char- ter prescribe their duties, compensations and terms of office," instead of specify- ing a superintendent of education and a business manager as statutory officers. MR. POST: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say on Mr. Ritter's amendment or suggestion to the gentlemen who state that these officers ought to be charter officers, that it seems to me that their argument is somewhat more plausible than sound. The question really is whether these officers ought to be em- ployes of the board or charter officers. That is the question that is raised, it seems to. me. Now, if they are to be employes of the board the board ought to be able to control them in my judg- ment; ought to be able to appoint and remove at will, to raise or lower salaries at will, and the board in that case should have the responsibility for its employes. If they are to be charter officers, if there is any analogy between the council and the mayor, for example, such an analogy as has been drawn here, then the duty of employing these men ought not to be left to the board, no” the duty of removing them. Tf they are charter officers they are separate from the board and the pro- visions for appointment and removal ought to be made separately from the board. Tn other words, to sum it all up, they should bo treated in this char- ter either as employes of the boards, or as charter officers, and upon that principle should depend whether we December 22 666 1906 adopt this provision or not. If we wish to make them charter officers* we should change the place and power of appoint- ment and removal. On the question of stability of ten- ure, doubtless there is a good deal of force in the argument that positions of this character should be stable. The question is whether the stability should be maintained arbitrarily; or whether it should be maintained in accordance with a policy in which we must depend upon the good sense and good faith of the school trustees to carry it out. You are making it an arbitrary proposition, trying to make tenure stable regardless of other things. Now, stability of ten- ure is a good thing, but there are other things good and bad, and stability of tenure, if you make it by an arbitrary provision, in all probability you will make trouble with your school system — greater trouble than if you leave it to the judgment and discretion of the board as to the term of office of these men. Stability of tenure in principals ought to be maintained. It is a bad thing for the school system to have unstability of tenure as to principals or as to super- intendents of districts, or as to teach- ers. Are you going to put provisions in this charter to secure stability of ten- ure arbitrarily — arbitrary provisions — provisions in the charter to the effect that teachers must be retained in the service whether or no, until absolute charges of dereliction can be suggested and proven? There isn’t a single word as to stability of tenure which is sound that applies to the business manager or to the superintendent that does not ap- ply in an equal degree to the principals and the district superintendents and the teachers themselves. Now, if I may say one w T ord on Mr. White’s motion to save the necessity of my addressing the Chair again, with reference to the cuts, I take it that what Mr. White meant was that if the financial condition necessitates a cut the board should be at liberty to make a horizontal cut. That it should not be tied up so that it could not follow this course if it is advisable. I do not understand Mr. White as advocating the policy of changing salaries during the term of office but as advocating liber- ty on the part of the board to make a horizontal cut if that should become necessary in consequence of the bad financial condition of the system. It seems to me that in that respect his position is entirely sound except as to one detail, namely, that it is not fair, as he says, that that cut should be hori- zontal. If you have a $10,000 superinten- dent and an’ $800 teacher, both of them efficient in their respective functions, it is a great deal more of a hard- ship to take 10 per cent, off of the sal- ary of the $800 teacher than it is to take 10 per cent, off of the slary of the $10,000 superintendent; to reduce the superintendent from $10,000 to $9,000 under- circumstances of finan- cial stress is much easier on him than to reduce an $800 teacher to $720 is* upon her. And it seems to me that to call it fair to make a horizontal re- duction under the stress of those cir- cumstances is to misapprehend the meaning of fairness. It is the same kind of fairness that would, for in- stance, tax the man who gets a small income of, say, $800, the same per- centage that you tax the millionaire for the same purposes. It is on the ques- tion of fairness; and, it is not fair in its practical operation. It is only fair in columns of statistics, and columns of statistics do not always pan out fair in practical life. MR. WHITE: May I read one clause, Mr. Chairman, which may an- swer one statement of Mr. Post? THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. White. MR. WHITE: On page 545, under Section 10, I think we have provided, December 22 667 1906 at least I so understand it and am very much in favor of it — we have provided for permanency in the office of teachers and principals: ( 1 Appointments, promotions and transfers of teachers shall be made for merit only, and after satisfactory ser- vice for a probationary period of three years, appointments of teachers and principals shall become permanent, sub- ject to removal for cause upon written charges” — not for two years, or three years, or four years, but subject only to the provision which is the same that we have in the case of superintendents. Then, of course, is added what ought to be added, that the board need not retain in service more principals or teachers than the needs of the schools require. That is because we cannot do what Mr. Raymer, as a business man, might be able to do — go out and borrow the money. MR. MacMILLAN: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to be technical about it at all, but I have sat here for some time remembering that I made a motion some time since and these gentlemen have repeatedly, and they have done it well, violated the spirit of that motion. The motion that I made was that we proceed to take up the first portion of this, concerning which up to that time no objection had been made. Now, I ask that Mr. Ritter’s amend- ment be read. If these gentlemen wish to discuss the question of tenure of office, or of salary, I am perfectly will- ing to listen to them, but we have not reached that yet, and I think most of them have been discussing a matter, which practically, Mr. Chairman, is not before the Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read Mr. Ritter’s amendment. The Chair read Mr. Ritter’s amendment a moment ago for the very purpose sug- gested by Mr. MacMillan. The Secretary read Mr. MacMillan’s amendment as hereinbefore printed. THE CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the Chair can state the amendment better than it can be read. Mr. Ritter’s amendment provides that the board shall appoint such officers as it may deem necessary instead of providing a super- intendent of schools and a business manager as statutory officers. The Sec- retary will call the roll. Yeas — Ritter, Guerin, Patterson, Post —4. Nays — Beebe, Bennett, Brosseau, Brown, Carey, Cole, Crilly,- Dixon, G. W.; Eckhart, B. A.; Eckhart, J. W.; Eidmann, Erickson, Gansbergen, Hill, Hoyne, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Mac- Millan, McGoorty, Merriam, O’Donnell, Oehne, Owens, Pendarvis, Raymer, Revell, Rosenthal, Sethness, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Sunny, Swift, Taylor, Vopicka, Werno, White, Wilkins, Zim- mer — 40. (During roll call.) MR. PATTERSON: I would like to be recorded as voting aye, Mr. Chair- man. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon Mr. Rit- ter’s motion to amend, the yeas are 4 and the nays are 40, and the motion is lost. The question now reverts upon Mr. MacMillan’s motion to adopt the section as follows: “The board shall appoint as executive officers a superin- tendent of schools and a business mana- ger, and may also appoint or provide for the appointment of such other officers and employes as it may deem necessary, and shall, subject to the provisions of this charter, prescribe their duties, com- pensations and terms of office.” (Cries of “question.”) THE CHAIRMAN: As many as fa- vor that motion will signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. It is carried. The next is the next sentence of that section, “but the term of office of the superintendent of education and of the December 22 668 1906 business manager shall not be less than four years. ” ME. G. W. DIXON: I move its adoption, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIEMAN: As many as fa- vor that will signify by saying aye. MR. POST: I do not wish to speak in regard to my vote upon that, but the point upon which I rise is that in my opinion on. an important matter of this kind we should have a roll call. Of course, where the matter has been practically decided by a roll call, as in the last question, I do not care for a subsequent .roll call, a second roll call on the main point, but it seems to me we ought to have a roll call on the main proposition on the principal prop- osition. (Cries of “ question’ ’ and “roll call. ’ ’ ’) MR. TAYLOR: I would like to state THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll upon the next clause, “but the term of office of superinten- dent of education and of the business manager shall not be less than four years . 1 ’ MR. TAYLOR: I understood that Mr. Post offered an amendment, that those words be amended, and I would like to ask whether he insists upon his amendment. MR. POST: How is that? MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Post offered an amendment. What is the question? Is the question on Mr. Post’s amendment to strike out or what? THE CHAIRMAN: What difference does it make whether we take it affirm- atively or negatively? MR. TAYLOR: I don’t care. I wish to state in a very few words three or four reasons for keeping it in; first MR. SHANAHAN: We are all go- ing to vote for it, anyhow (Cries of “‘question, question.”) MR. POST: What are we voting on, what is this for? Is it on the motion to strike out? THE CHAIRMAN: It is upon the question of the adoption of the words, “but the term of office of the superin- tendent of education and business mana- ger shall not be less than four years.” MR. POST : I would like to ask simply as a matter of parliamentary procedure how a motion to strike out can be changed or turned into a motion to adopt? THE CHAIRMAN: There is no way that it can be done, unless it is with the desire to get an affirmative vote. As I understand Mr. Post has been one of those who desired an affirmative vote on this proposition. MR. POST: I don’t care whether we have or not; I know whether to vote yes or no, no matter what shape this thing is put in, and if any member don ’t, why let them have it in that form. Yeas — Beebe, Bennett, Brosseau, Brown, Carey, Cole, Crilly, Ritter, Dixon, G. W.; Eckhart, B. A.; Eckhart, J. W.; Eidmann, Erickson, Gansbergen, Hoyne, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Line- han, MacMillan, McGoorty, Raymer, Revell, Rosenthal, Sethness, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Sunny, Swift, Taylor, Yopicka, Werno, White, Wilkins, Zim- mer — 36. Nays — Guerin, Merriam, O ’Donnell, Oehne, Owens, Patterson, Pendarvis, Post — 8. (During roll call.) MR. HILL: I am not quite satisfied on this proposition at the present time. I was in hopes Mr. Taylor might give us a little light, or some one better posted than I am. I understand this is quite the contrary from the practice fol- lowed by universities throughout the United States. I do not understand that they hire professors for a set term of four years. My understanding is that they hire them sometimes for a couple of years, a sort of a trial or December 22 669 1906 probationary term, and after that, they are employed along and they consider that a sort of promotion, and if he is all right he will be retained. If it works to the satisfaction of the uni- versities, if that system is satisfactory to them, and other educational institu- tions all over the country, I can’t see why the Board of Education should be called upon to make the employment a set term of four years each time. That is the way it looks to me. With that understanding I would like to have my name passed; I don’t want to vote on a subject I don’t know anything about any more than I do about this. ME. MERRIAM: I would like to state inasmuch as this is contrary, so far as the superintendent of schools goes, to the best practice known in the country, and as far as the office of busi- ness manager goes, contrary to the best business practices known in the coun- try, I desire to vote no. MR. O’DONNELL: I want to look to the Board of Education for the faith- ful conduct and management of the schools of the city. I see in this an attempt to thwart the board in the com- plete management and control of the schools of the city. I attended the pub- lic schools when a child, and I feel a great interest in them and I want to see them perpetuated. I want the re- sponsibility placed where it should be, upon the Board of Education, a member of which ought to be a great, large man, with a large mind, with a mind suffi- ciently large to grasp the will of the citizens of all classes, and with a great, large heart; and the schools of the City of Chicago should be conducted wholly on heart, so that the children when graduating from the schools would not be mere automatons, but that they would have some heart, and that heart should be instilled into the education of these children; and believing that the superintendent of schools might be a man without any heart and one that is not in unison with the great body of teachers and of principals and of the institution itself, that it is dangerous to put a man in that position for four years that might be of that class, that may not be so favored by the Almighty or by his education or training or his de- sires or bents, I am free to say I am not in favor of putting a man in that posi- tion for four years; I am afraid to put a man in that position for four years, and I am compelled to vote no. MR. GUERIN : After listening to the argument THE CHAIRMAN : For what purpose does Dr. Guerin rise? MR. GUERIN: I rise to change my vote, for these reasons: After listening to the arguments of Professor Merriam and Mr. O ’Donnell, I am convinced that we ought not to have a superintendent elected for four years; therefore I change my vote to no. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the motion to adopt the section fixing the term of office of superintendent of education and business manager not less than four years, the yeas are 36 and the nays are 8, and the motion is carried. The Secre- tary will now read the last sentence. The Secretary then read the last sen- tence, as follows: “And the salary of no officer shall be lowered during his term of office.” MR. G. W. DIXON: I move its adoption, Mr. Chairman. (Cries of “question.”) THE CHAIRMAN: As many as fa- vor the adoption of that motion will signify by saying aye; opposed, no. I will put that again: as many as favor the motion will signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. MR. POST: I wish to be recorded as voting no on that. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you desire a roll call? MR. POST: No, I don’t think it is necessary; I think it was involved in December 22 670 1906 the previous roll call; but I wish to be recorded as voting no. ME. WHITE: I wish to be recorded as voting no. ME. EEYELL: I would like to be recorded as voting no. THE CHAIEMAN: Let the roll be called. Yeas — Bennett, Brosseau, Cole, Crilly, Eitter, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Erickson, Gansbergen, Guerin, Hill, Jones, Kittle- man, Lathrop, Linehan, MacMillan, Mc- Goorty, Oehne, Owens, Pendarvis, Eay- mer, Eosenthal, Sethness, Shanahan, Shedd, Shepard, Sunny, Swift, Taylor, Yopicka, Werno, Wilkins, Zimmer — 35. Nays — Beebe, Brown, Carey, Hoyne, Merriam, O’Donnell, Patterson, Post, Ee- vell, White— 10. (During roll call.) ME. PATTEESON: I would like tc inquire if by this amendment, it would be possible for the school board to re- duce the salaries of the teachers dur- ing — or if it. means that the school board may reduce the salaries of the su- perintendents'? Is that the meaning ol this amendment? THE CHAIEMAN : There is a sep arate section relating to teachers. This seems to apply only to the two officers, the two charter officers. ME. PATTEESON: It says, “all of fleers appointed,” does it not? It says. 1 1 all officers. ’ ’ THE CHAIEMAN: “The salary o no officer. ’ ’ ME. MacMILLAN : May I ask a ques- tion? THE CHAIEMAN: Mr. Patterson is on his feet during a roll call; he aros when his name was called. ME. PATTEESON: I would like to ask a question, and that is whether this amendment will permit the salaries of teachers to be reduced during their term of office, but will not permit the salaries of the superintendents to be reduced? THE CHAIEMAN: The Chair can- not answer that question. Perhaps Dr. Taylor can. ME. MacMILLAN : May I ask a question? May I make a remark? THE CHAIEMAN: Yes, sir. ME. MacMILLAN : If a teacher, a grade teacher, is employed for a term under the meaning of this section, as the superintendent is, that answers Mr. Pat- terson ’s question, I think. ME. PATTEESON: Then teachers" salaries can be reduced and the super- intendent’s cannot; is that right? THE CHAIEMAN: We are trying to arrive at an answer to your ques- tion. Mr. MacMillan suggests that the grade teacher not being employed for a term would not come within the mean- ing of this clause. ME. MacMILLAN : A grade teacher is not employed for a term; a grade teacher’s service is indefinite; a super- intendent or business manager is em- ployed for a time and term certain. ME. POST: Mr. White — pardon me for just a moment — Mr. White told us a moment ago, in an argument that he made in opposition to my position re- garding superintendents, that the grade teachers should have their terms of office fixed, if they served three years their position becomes permanent, and they cannot be removed only on charges. It seems to me Mr. Patterson ’s question is useless. THE CHAIEMAN: The Chair can- not permit this discussion during a roll call. ME. PATTEESON: I don’t want to vote on that question unless I know about it; no one of us seems to know about it. THE CHAIEMAN : The Chair would suggest that the matter of teachers be taken up under Section 10, when that section is taken up; that relates to the salaries of the teachers — it relates solely to the subject of teachers, and then such amendments may be put as relate December 22 671 1906 to the teachers, if the Convention sees fit to do so. The Chair — in the opinion of the Chair this relates only to the officers who are mentioned in this sec- tion, and to no others. MR. PATTERSON: Then I will vote no. MR. REVELL: I just wish to ex- plain, for the reason that I believe any general reduction made in the school system should be from top to bottom, I vote no. MR. COLE: I did not answer to my name when called because I did not un- derstand the question; but on the theory that this applies to those officers men- tioned above entirely, and not to attor- neys and others who may be appointed by the Board of Education, I vote aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cole votes aye on that understanding. THE CHAIRMAN: On the motion to adopt the last section the yeas are .35 and the nays are 10; the motion is carried. The Secretary will read the next paragraph. The Secretary then read the next par- agraph, on page 645, as follows: “The requirement that an officer of the city shall at the time of his appointment be a resident of the city, shall not apply to the superintendent of schools. ” MR. POST: I think we should have an interpretation of that. If it means, as probably it does, that the school board shall be at liberty to select a superintendent from anywhere in the United States, or world for that matter, and is merely to protect him in that respect, that is a proper provision. It seems to me it is right to safeguard him so that we will not have non-resident superintendents of schools for four years. THK ( 'HA 1 1 CM A X : It semis to me that the Board of Education will not be limited to the City of Chicago to the election of a superintendent of educa- tion. MR. POST: I am in favor of that. THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor of that signify by saying aye; opposed, no. Carried. The Secretary will read the next paragraph. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman— The Secretary read the next para- graph, as it appears in the proceedings at page 645. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I move to amend by substituting the word “ma- jority” for the words “ two -thirds } \ THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. White moves to substitute the word “majority” wherever the words “two-thirds” occur. MR. POST : Mr. President, I move to amend by striking out all after the words “to be removable”, about half- way down the paragraph, and inserting instead of those words, “by a majority vote of all the members of the board, on due notice to the official”. I do not care to say anything about that, as I discussed it under the previous mo- tion. I move to strike out and insert. If it will serve the desire of my friends on the other side to have that vote in a form so that they can vote affirm- atively, I should be willing to move to lay it on the table for their accommo- dation. It makes no difference to me whether the vote is taken affirmatively or negatively. THE CHAIRMAN: Your motion is in the nature of an amendment. Your motion is to amend by striking out and inserting. Your motion is, after the word 1 1 removable ’ that word will be stricken out and the words shall be in- serted, “by a vote of a majority of the board ’ \ MR. POST: With the addition — THE CHAIRMAN: On written charges. MR. POST : No, not written charges. THE CHAIRMAN: Will you have it written out? MR. POST : I will write it. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will write it out. MR. SHANAHAN: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Post has December 22 672 1906 the floor. Wait till I get Mr. Post’s amendment. ME. SHANAHAN: While waiting for Mr. Post ’s amendment I would like to call attention to the fact that we have gone on record here before as in favor of the civil service in every de- partment of the city. Why should we now exempt the Board of Education especially 1 ? I think — ME. WHITE : Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. THE CHAIEMAN : Mr. Shanahan has the floor. ME. WHITE: I rise to the point of order. THE CHAIEMAN: What is your point of order, Mr. White? ME. WHITE: I have an amendment which is before the Convention that is specific, namely, to substitute “major- ity” for “two-thirds”. I think that should be given consideration. ME. POST : I ask to have my mo- tion suspended till we vote upon the other one. THE CHAIEMAN: Then we will take up Mr. White ’s motion to substitute “majority” for “two-thirds.” ME. TAYLOE: I think it is but fair to the committee to state the reasons why two-thirds of the Board of Edu- cation is required before the dismissal of the superintendent of education. The necessity of fixing the term of his of- fice is the danger of dismissal from public for other causes than inefficiency, and they do not obtain in private cor- porations. Now, leaving the Board of Education free for its legislative and broadly administrative functions leaves the superintendent of education as the agent of the board, free from unrea- sonable interference and from the con- stant effort to protect his tenure of office from an attack in the board. And I submit whether every superintendent of education that we have ever had has not been compelled to pay more or less of the attention which he owes to the superintendency of the schools to a defense of his own tenure of office, which may be imperiled at any single meeting of the board by a simple ma- jority of one. I do not believe that you can get a man of the higher caliber to stand in such a precarious condition with- out any tenure of office sufficient to test fairly his policy of administration. It is a very different proposition from the employment of a hired official by a private corporation. For this is a quasi-political appointment, no matter what you say about it, and a man is more or less dependent upon reasons for the election or dismissal other than those of his efficiency. This simply safe- guards the public interests, and I plead for the retention of the vote by two- thirds. ME. MacMILLAN : Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of the vote of two-thirds, but for different reasons than those stated by Professor Taylor. I believe that a man who is or shall be elected superintendent of our public schools would, in his own interests, if he were a wise man, desire to be elected by a two-thirds vote of the board and be dismissed by the same majority. I do not believe that it is a wise rule, as has been indicated, to elect a man by a bare majority and then require a two-thirds vote for his dismissal. I think it is illogical and entirely im- proper. I do not know that this detail is a wise one to introduce into our char- ter. I think w y e are descending some- what into the code when some of these matters are injected into the charter, as I believe they are. But in regard to this question of majority which is being considered, I believe that we should be at least reasonably consistent in this, that we should prescribe that it should take at least ten out of fif- teen members to make an election, and at least ten out of fifteen members to dismiss. December 22 673 1906 I do not know that it would be in order, Mr. Chairman, to introduce into this section at this time such a prop- osition, but it occurs to me if it were in order, I would make that motion, and on that proposition I think we could with reason and with fairness go before anybody and ask him to come in here and ask him to become super- intendent of our public schools. Now, gentlemen, if you want the best educational talent that can be had, and we want nothing less, we must present to that educational talent such induce- ments as will draw to the City of Chi- cago the very best which the country can offer. Our children should have nothing less, and we, as representing them, should permit nothing less. So far as I am a product of anything, I am a product of the public schools of the City of Chicago. Most of you are. 'We are not divided upon the question of the best thing to be done; it is simply our different viewpoints. But, I submit in all fairness that if the committee of which Prof. Taylor is the honored chair- man, would bring in a suggestion of that kind, I believe it would meet the views and be accorded the approval of gen- tlemen who have given this matter much more attention than I have and who know far more about it than I can possibly know. But it has occurred to me that we are putting ourselves in the attitude of being exceedingly illogical, as I said be- fore, by making a bare majority neces- sary to elect and a two-thirds necessary to dismiss. There are many things, gen- tlemen of the Convention, which may occur as the administration of the ardu- ous and numberless duties of superin- tendent of public instruction which might be highly improper in small ways, in undefinable ways, but which it might be found very difficult to embrace in a statement or chart, or set forth clearly in any accusation ; but it might be dis- covered that a superintendent of public instruction might become exceedingly ob- noxious, might become, if you please, exceedingly inefficient, and yet at the same time no board of education in existence might be able to formulate a statement of charges against him that w’ould be satisfactory to a public mind. Every man of business and every pro- fessional men knows that there are in- tolerable conditions existing sometimes, and the only way to remove these in- tolerable conditions is to remove the one who brings them about, and yet, if you were called upon to state in words and figures as follows, you could not do it. So I trust in some form or another this will be brought about. If we are to have a majority to elect, we must logi- cally have a majority to dismiss. If we have a two-thirds to elect, then it will be entirely proper to have a two-thirds to dismiss. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you desire the floor, Mr. Merriam ? MR. MERRIAM: Yes. Mr. Chair- man, I am in favor of any reasonable restrictions upon the action of the Board of Education. It seems to me that a requirement that a superintendent of schools may be removed only by a two- thirds vote is simply providing material for trouble. A condition of affairs un- der which a superintendent of schools responsible for educational administra- tion may continue in that position with a majority of the board opposed to him, and a majority of the board desiring his removal, is simply impossible. You will provide material here for an un- told amount of trouble and dissension and wrangling between the superintend- ent and the board. If you had a situation under our new fifteen membership board, in which nine members of the board desired to re- move the superintendent, and the other six are opposed to it, under those cir- cumstances you have clash from the beginning of the year to the end. The superintendent of the schools will be December 22 674 1906 held in that position by a minority of the board by the opposition of the fairly expressed will and desire of the major- ity. Now, if the Board of Education is to be held responsible for the general edu- cational policy of the city it would place them in a very difficult position. While they are held by the people of the city, and rightly held to be responsible for the educational policy, at the same time a majority cannot control it and you are in the position of placing the respon- sibility in the hands of people who do not have the power to control the situation. And where you get a situa- tion in which a man is held respon- sible for a thing he cannot do, you certainly have a most deplorable ar- rangement. That is precisely what will happen here when you hold a majority of the board responsible for the educational administration and prohibit the majority from appointing or removing the man who actually does control it. In the second place, as far as Mr. MacMillan has said about securing educators of a high grade as superintendents, I take it you would hardly get an educator who will want to remain, — the kind of a man we want — who will want to remain on a Board of Education of which nine members are opposed to him and where nine members desire his removal and six only are in his favor. I cannot con- ceive of a situation in which any men of sound sense would desire to remain on a board with one less than two-thirds of the board hostile to him and desiring to put him out. I. would be more inclined to think that it would be reasonable to say one-third. If a superintendent of education, or a president of a university, finds that one-third of the membership of the trustees, or of the school board are actually opposed to him, it is generally quite clear that either the president will have to go in the near future, or the board. That is an untenable and im- possible situation. It cannot continue. Either the board will have to leave or the superintendent or the president will have to go. The superintendent must be as things go in the large, a man who is able not only to manage the schools, but to secure the support and respect and co-operation of a majority of the board. If he cannot do that then any of these artificial props that hold him in there against the will of the majority are dangerous and ought not to be in- serted in a charter of this sort. ME. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that in discussing this subject we are somewhat losing our bear- ings. We ought to remember that this is not alone a mere business appoint- ment for a business institution; we are seeking for the office of superintendent of our schools a high grade man, the same sort of a man that you will put' in as president of a university. Now, it is well known that we cannot in the City of Chicago, nor possibly in many of our cities, secure, or if we do secure it is with the greatest difficulty that we get that sort of a man. And why is it? It is because it is known that this office is a sort of semi-political office. Now, let us do everything in our power to make this office attractive to the best class of men, and one thing that is essential for the purpose of making it attractive is that we shall secure a man the tenure of his office. Knowing how persons are appointed to the Board of Education, knowing that they are often appointed for po- litical reasons and without any educa- tional tests, or because of their fa- miliarity with the subject of education, we do not want to subject the man whom we put in as superintendent of schools to the whim or caprice of a mere majority of the board. And I want to say that to my notion, if the man who is selected as superin- tendent of schools is the right sort of December 22 675 1906 a man, is a man who is an educator and a pedagogue, and nothing but that, he is fearless in what does and does it simply in the interests of the pupils and children, and I say that man is sooner or later bound to antagonize some members of the board who are not peda- gogues, but who are simply selected at random from the city and put in for the time being to administer the affairs of the school system of the City of Chi- cago. Now, let us do everything in our power while we have the opportunity now to make it possible to put that sort of men in power there that we need for the education of our children; and it seems to me that when we are dealing with this subject of education, which really means the education of the future gen- erations of this city, we ought to safe- guard the interests of those future gen- erations in every way we possibly can, and not make it easy to expel any man for cause, because cause can very easily be found. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon Dr. White’s amendment that the word ‘ ‘ majority” be inserted wherever “two-thirds” appear. We will have the roll call. The Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Carey, Ritter, Erickson, Guerin, McGoorty, Merriam, O’Donnell, Owens, Patterson, Post, Shepard, White, Zim- mer — 13. Nays — Beebe, Bennett, Brosseau, Brown, Cole, Crilly, Dixon, G. W., Eck- hart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Gansbergen, Hill, Hoyne, Jones, Kittle- man, Lathrop, Linehan, MacMillan, Mc- Kinley, Oehne, Pendarvis, Raymer, Re- vel!, Rosenthal, Sethness, Shanahan, Shedd, Sunny, Swift, Taylor, Yopicka, Werno, Wilkins — 33. (During roll call.) MR. KITTLEMAN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain my vote. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kittleman. MR. KTTTIjEMAN : Mr. Chairman, I think to be logical I ought to vote for the majority, but inasmuch as I believe that the Convention made a great mis- take when it did not make the school board elective but left it to political appointment, and in order to provide against the possible political element that I think will enter in, and to say that I do not think we will ever have the school matters on a right basis until we elect the school board, and to prevent a man from being turned out of office because of political influences, I will vote no. MR. YOPICKA: Mr. Chairman, I wish to explain my vote: I vote no for the same reasons that Mr. Kittleman stated. THE CHAIRMAN : Upon Dr. White ’s motion to amend, the ayes are 13 and the nays are 33, and the motion is lost. The question is now upon Mr. Post ’s amendment to strike out everything after the word “removal,” and insert the words “by a majority vote of all the members of the board on due notice to the officers. ’ ’ MR. POST : Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the previous vote suffi- ciently indicates the attitude of the body toward that amendment I do not demand a roll call. I simply wish to be re- corded as voting aye. MR. SHANAHAN : Question. THE CHAIRMAN : As many as are in favor of the adoption of the amend- ment will signify by saying aye. Op- posed no. The motion is lost. The question is now upon the adop- tion of the entire section. MR, SHANAHAN: Mr. Chairman, 1 will send up an amendment. THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Shanahan ’s amendment will be read. The Secretary read Mr. Shanahan’s amendment, as hereinafter printed. MR, SHANAHAN: The paragraph then would apply to the superintendent of education and the business manager. It means that the superintendent of edu- December 22 676 1906 cation and the business manager would not be under civil service law. ME. J. W. ECKHAET: How about the attorney, would he be under the civil service law? MR. SHANAHAN : No, sir. Under the wording of this, taken in connection with the first section, you would exclude all of the employes of the board. ME. JONES: Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Shanahan a question? THE CHAIRMAN: Does Mr. Shan- ahan yield the floor? MR. SHANAHAN: Yes, sir. MR. JONES: I should like to ask Mr. Shanahan if he would be willing to make this amendment read so that the board might appoint an attorney and a secretary and an auditor? MR, SHANAHAN : Yes. MR. JONES: Who might not be un- der civil service, but all the others would be. MR. J. W. ECKHAET : I would sug- gest that it should be the executive offi- cers. MR. JONES: Just those three? THE CHAIRMAN: Let the amend- ment be presented to the Secretary. MR. SHANAHAN: I will accept Senator Jones’ suggestion and embody it in the article. MR. RAYMER: Mr. Chairman THE CHAIRMAN: Let us get this amendment first. The Secretary read the amendment, as hereinafter printed. MR. JONES : Mr. Chairman, I would suggest in place of those words that they be stricken out and that this be added: “and the secretary, and an auditor and an attorney. ’ ’ MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, may we hear that once more? THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shanahan, have you accepted Senator Jones’ amend- ment? MR. SH^AHAN: Yes, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, then let it be read in its present shape. The Secretary read Mr. Shanahan’s amendment as amended by Mr. Jones. MR. COLE: Mr. Chairman, I under- stand that this amendment of Mr. Shan- ahan’s puts everybody in the civil ser- vice except those officers? THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct. MR. COLE: For that reason I favor the amendment and hope it will prevail. MR. MacMILLAN : I would like to ask a question or two, Mr. Chairman, re- specting this amendment. What shall be the term of office of these men? Is that provided in the amendment? MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I will answer that by saying that the second sentence of Section 7, which we have adopted, gives the board the power to appoint officers and employes and fix such compensation and terms of office as they may desire. MR. MacMILLAN : I haven ’t any objection to that. I think that is a good proposition. MR. REYELL: May I ask THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacMillan. MR. MacMILLAN : But what I in- sist on, Mr. Chairman, is that we hold firmly by the principle of civil service, and make it very clear that this office, suggested by Mr. Shanahan ’s resolution — is that right? — all but the offices pro- vided by Senator Jones’ resolution, be included in the civil service. I mean only with the exception of these five heads. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you under- stand the motion? Are you ready for the question ? MR. MacMILLAN: After that I have a short amendment. THE CHAIRMAN : After this is dis- posed of? MR. MacMILLAN: Yes. MR. TAYLOR: I submit the archi- tect and the engineer should not be un- der civil service. You must include the architect and engineer; they must be included in the list, otherwise they will be under the civil service. December 22 677 1906 ME, SHANAHAN: May I ask the president of the Board of Education what officers are now under the civil ser- vice law? MR. RITTER: As far as I know: the secretary, the business manager, the architect and the auditor. I am not sure about the chief truant officer. I was going to ask that. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is ad- vised he is. MR. RITTER: The chief engineer and the architect is duly certified by the civil service commission. MR. SHANAHAN : But is it not a fact that the secretary is under the civil service law? MR. RITTER: I am not sure. (Cries of “He is.”) MR, RITTER: There is a rule giv- ing exemption MR. EIDMANN : I would like to ask if the word “attorney” should not read 1 1 attorneys. ’ ’ I understand there is not only one attorney, but there are more than one attorneys. And the at- torneys, are exempt, as I understand it, under the civil service law. MR. SHANAHAN : I take the posi- tion Mr. MacMillan took that these ought not to go into the charter. It is a matter that should be in the code. All I am anxious about is to protect the em- ployes that are now under the civil ser- vice, and not have anything go into this charter which might leave a loop hole whereby the Board of Education may go in and elect janitors, ertgineers, book- keepers and all other employes. MR. COLE: The civil service law will take care of that. We have only to deal with five officials. The other matters will take care of themselves. MR. WHITE: May I ask— I suppose this is to cover the matter of district superintendents provided for in this next section. Is that covered by this pro- position? MR. RITTER: Educational employes are not in the jurisdiction of the civil service law. MR. B. A. ECKHART : It seems to me all that ought to be considered here is who we wish to exempt from the civil service law. If we provide just who we shall exempt as has been stated, it will be taken care of by the civil service law, after consolidation is adopted, and after the Board of Educa- tion is a department of the city govern- ment. I do not think it is necessary for us to specify who the charter shall in- clude. I think it is immaterial to do that. A simple act provides for the re- tention, if you desire to appoint any one outside the superintendent of schools and the business manager. MR. RAYMER: I would like to ask Mr. Ritter to repeat his answer to the question he made a few moments ago. That is, as to what employes of the Board of Education the civil service laws now cover. MR. RITTER: I am not sure, aider- man. I think these ought to be put in the blank in case they are not in now. That they should be exempt from the civil service under the new arrange- ment. My understanding was that the secretary was outside of the civil ser- vice regulations, but I am assured he now is within. MR. RAYMER: My purpose in ask- ing Mr. Ritter to again make reply was the suggestion made by Dr. White as to whether this amendment of Mr. Shana- han ’s covered the superintendent of schools. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is ad- vised it does not. MR. RAYMER : District superinten- dents. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is ad- vised that the teachers of the public schools are not within the purview of the civil service law. Mr. Shanahan moves to amend by exempting from the operation of the civil service law the manager, the super- December 22 678 1906 intendent of instruction, the auditor, the secretary and the attorney. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, I have not submitted this list to Mr. Shanahan, but I hope he will adopt it. I ask that this section be read THE CHAIRMAN: Let it be read up here, Mr. Rosenthal. MR. ROSENTHAL: I simply wish to substitute this list for the one Mr. Shanahan has handed to Senator Jones: superintendent of schools, the business manager, the attorney, the auditor, the chief architect and the chief engineer. . MR. TAYLOR : Superintendent of education. THE CHAIRMAN: Will you send that up, please? You heard Mr. Rosen- thal ’s substitute MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to say we did not hear it back here. THE CHAIRMAN: Sir? MR. WHITE: We did not hear it back here. THE CHAIRMAN : We will have it read in just a moment. The Secretary will read the amendment. He will read the section as amended by Mr. Rosen- thal. THE SECRETARY: ‘‘The appoint- ment and the removal of the superinten- dent of schools, and the business man- ager, the attorney, auditor, chief en- gineer and chief architect shall not be subject to the civil service law; but they shall be removable only for cause by vote of not less than two-thirds of all the members of the board upon written charges to be heard by the board on due notice to the official charged therewith; and after the hearing of the charges, such official may by two-thirds vote be suspended by the board. ’ ’ MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to have another amend- ment there. THE CHAIRMAN: To have what? MR. ROSENTHAL: We should have another amendment which should be : “ During their term of office be removable, ’ ’ otherwise THE CHAIRMAN: That is a mere correction of phraseology, rather than a correction. Are you ready for the section as amended? As many as favor it say aye MR. RITTER: May I ask a question? Why is the architect exempted from the civil service ? MR. COLE: That is what I want to know? MR. TAYLOR: The reason why he is exempt is that THE CHAIRMAN: Will you talk this way, Dr. Taylor? MR. TAYLOR : The reason why he is exempt is that there may be a wider range of choice of architects, other than those who are eligible on the list of the civil service. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question now? MR. POST : That applies to the secretary, I should say. The secretary’s office is a pretty important one. The Education Board requires a very efficient man as secretary, and if there should be a wider range wanted in regard to an architect, there should be a wider range of choice in regard to the secretary. MR. COLE: I submit the civil ser- vice law should take care of itself. 1 am opposed to everything except the five men mentioned. I hope all these amendments will be voted down ; that Mr. Shanahan’s motion will be THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will put the motion when you are all through talking. MR. COLE: I hope these will be voted down. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state the question. Are you ready for the question? MR. SHEPARD: Read it. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary read it once more. The Secretary read the resolution, as amended. December 22 679 1906 MR. SHANAHAN: Now, Mr. Chair- man, I am not going to except even the architect. I stand on principle. I am not for removing any man who is now under the civil service law. Gentlemen have said why should the architect be removed from the civil service law? I do not think he should be excepted. MR. MERRIAM: I agree with Mr. Shanahan on this. As I . understand it, the architect is now under the civil ser- vice. If he is, what argument is there why we should remove him? We have chosen a great many officers who are not under the civil service and have placed them under the civil service; why should we remove this one? MR. ROSENTHAL: I ask that we have a separate vote on the question of the architect, and I want to say this, as far as the architect is concerned, that I believe that we would secure from time to time possibly men of originality and men of new ideas if we enable them to come from outside the city. We should keep this particular office free for such appointments. MR. REVELL: I thoroughly agree with Mr. Rosenthal that we should not act on this matter with a view to the present man who fills this office, but with a view to the man who might be sought to fill it for all time to come until the charter may be changed. THE CHAIRMAN : Are you ready for the question? MR. MacMILLAN: Mr. Chairman, does this preclude a further amendment? THE CHAIRMAN: Sir? MR. MacMILLAN : Does this pre- clude a further amendment? THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would suggest that no further amendments be stated before the motion is put. MR. MERRIAM: May we have a separate vote in regard to the architect? THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor — MR. WHITE: What is the motion? THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is to exempt the chief architect from the operation of the civil service law. MR. WHITE: While not wishing to take the time of the Convention but for a moment, Mr. Chairman, I think I am as familiar with the civil service law as any one, and I think it is a fact that very often in the very important position of that kind you can get a man who is very incompetent as compared with some other men, if you have the opportunity of going out and choosing him just as a business firm has. Often- times men may pass a civil service ex- amination, but it does not mean that he is the best man for the particular posi- tion. I think such an important office should be exempt whatever he is under the law at the present time. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor — MR. POST: Roll call, please. THE CHAIRMAN: The roll will be called on the motion to exempt the chief architect from the operation of the civil service law. MR. COLE: Let us understand. He is now under the civil service law, and we are going to take him from under it. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is not prepared to answer any more conun- drums than he is compelled to. The amendment is to take the architect out of the civil service. Call the roll. Yeas — Beebe, Brosseau, Brown, Carey, Crilly, Eckhart, J. W., Jones, McGoorty, O ’Donnell, Oehne, Patterson, Raymer, Revell, Rosenthal, Sethness, Shedd, Swift, Taylor, Vopicka, White, Wilkins — 21 . Nays — Bennett, Cole, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eidmann, Erickson, Gansbergen, Guerin, Hill, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, MacMillan, McKinley, Merriam, Owens, Pendarvis, Post, Shana- han, Shepard, Sunny, Werno, Zimmer — 23. (During roll call.) MR. RITTER: Pass. MR. POST: T wish to explain my December 22 680 1906 vote. The civil service law has given to the school board of Chicago a most excellent architect; I do not believe in making his tenure of office depen- dent upon the result of next spring’s election. I therefore vote no. MR. TAYLOR: I would like to ex- plain my vote. While I would do noth- ing to dispossess a personal friend, a man whose high capacity I know, yet I cannot vote for a charter which will com- pel me to keep even a man whom I regard highly, even though he is in office at the present time. I therefore vote no. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the motion to exclude the architects from the pur- view of the civil service law, the yeas are 21 and the nays 23, and the archi- tect will remain under civil service. MR. B. A. ECKHART: I desire to hand in a report from the Committee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan, with reference to the matter referred to the committee, Section 3. I will now hand it up to the Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: The report will be received and printed in the proceed- ings. Are there any further amend- ments? MR. MacMILLAN : I have an amend- ment in that line, and in the line of the few feeble remarks I made a while ago, about ‘ 1 consistency, thou art a jewel,” or words to that effect. I move to amend line 7 in the third paragraph, line 7 after the word “law,” “said superintendent and said business man- ager to be elected by a two-thirds vote of the entire board. ’ ’ MR. ROSENTHAL: I rise to a point of order. I think that ought to be taken up as a separate section. MR. MacMILLAN : This goes in here, all right. If it is a separate section it will be lost in the shuffle — or words to that effect; I don’t know what that means, but a brother just helped me out with it. I think that is where it belongs, that is the place for it to go in. Vote it down if you want to, but I would like to be consistent. You might take a viva voce vote on it, if you want to. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secretary read Mr. MacMillan’s amendment. MR. SHANAHAN: Before Mr. Mac : Millan ’s amendment is acted upon I have an amendment I sent to the clerk’s desk, as amended by Mr. Rosenthal, which ought to be acted upon first. THE CHAIRMAN: That involves the entire section. MR. SHANAHAN: Not necessarily; it applies to the first part. THE CHAIRMAN: Have you Mr. Shanahan’s motion? THE SECRETARY: Yes, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: Let me have that. Mr. Shanahan ’s motion is to strike out in line 3 the word “manager,” and down to the word and including “desig- nate, ’ ’ and insert these names — insert in lieu thereof “superintendent of schools, business manager, attorney and audi- tor.” Are you ready for the question? As many as favor the amendment will signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. The amendment is carried. THE CHAIRMAN : What is the next amendment? MR. MacMILLAN : For the purpose of making clear my amendment, I pres- ently withdraw' it for the purpose of reintroducing it and making it a separ- ate paragraph later on. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the section as amended? ( Cries of 1 1 Question. ’ ’ ) THE CHAIRMAN: As many as fa- vor that will signify by saying aye. MR, McGOORTY : I do not know as I have the full purport of Senator Mac- Millan ’s amendment; but it seems to me in order to be consistent, having pro- vided, in the third paragraph that a two- thirds vote of the board must be had to remove the officers designated there, the superintendent of education and the business manager, that the first section ought to be amended so that those par- December 22 681 1906 ticular officers should require a two- thirds vote of the board to be appointed. THE CHAIRMAN: That cannot be considered, Mr. McGoorty, at the present time; we have under consideration this particular section. If it is inconsistent with some other section, it can be taken off after this is disposed of. Manifestly we cannot dispose of two sections at the same time. MR. MeGOORTY: What has the Chair reference to, to the section or to the paragraph? THE CHAIRMAN: The entire sec- tion ; the third paragraph of section 7. MR. REYELL: The motion is the adoption of the entire section. MR. MeGOORTY : I submit if the whole section is now before the Con- vention for consideration THE CHAIRMAN: What do you mean by “the whole section?” MR. MeGOORTY : I mean the three paragraphs. THE CHAIRMAN: The third para- graph of Section 7 is under considera- tion. MR. MeGOORTY: Oh, yes. MR. RITTER: I had hoped that I should be recognized before Mr. Shana- han ’s motion was put, in order to ask him to except among those exempted, the chief truant officer, if he is not now under the civil service law. THE CHAIRMAN : He is now under the civil service law. MR. RITTER: All right. THE CHAIRMAN : Are you ready for the question? MR. ROSENTHAL: Let us hear the amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the section be read as amended. THE SECRETARY: The section as amended is the third paragraph under No. 7 at page 645: “The appointment and removal of the superintendent of schools, and a busi- ness manager, attorney and auditor shall not be subject to the civil service law, but they shall be removable only for cause, by a vote of not less than two- thirds of all the members of the board, upon written charges to be heard by the board on due notice to the officers charged therewith, but pending the hear- ing of the charges such officers may by two-thirds vote be suspended by the board . 1 ’ THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? ( Cries of ‘ 1 Question. ’ ’ ) THE CHAIRMAN : As many as fa- vor that section will signify by saying aye; opposed, no. It is carried. MR. COLE: I move to strike out all of Sections 8 and 9 as irrelevant. MR. MacMILLAN : Before that is put, I would like to call up a paragraph to be added to Section 7. MR. COLE : I am willing to yield, if I may have the floor after that matter is disposed of. THE CHAIRMAN: All right. MR. MacMILLAN: A paragraph which would be called paragraph 4 to Section 7. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary wflll read the same. THE SECRETARY: “By Mr. Mac- Millan: Paragraph 4, Section 7. The concurrence of two-thirds of all the mem- bers of the board shall be required to appoint the superintendent of schools and business manager. ’ ’ (Cries of “ Question. ’ ’) THE CHAIRMAN: That covers the point made by Mr. McGoorty, I believe. MR. MacMILLAN : Yes, sir, I think so. THE CHAIRMAN : Are you ready for the question? As many as favor the resolution will signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. The Secretary will call the roll on that. Yeas — Bennett, Brosseau, Brown, Cole, Crilly, Ritter, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eidmann, Gansbergen, Guerin, Hill, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linchan, MacMillan, McGoorty, McKinley, O’Donnell, Oehne* December 22 682 1906 Pendarvis, Raymer, Revell, Rosenthal, Sethness, Shanahan, Shepard, Sunny, Werno, White — 30. Nays— Carey, Eckhart, J. W., Erick- son, Jones, Merriam, Owens, Patterson, Post, Taylor, Yopicka, Zimmer — 11. MR. HILL: I would like to explain my vote. It seems clear to me that these officers can only be removed by a two- thirds vote, and if that is the case, it seems to me they should be appointed by a two-thirds vote. But it also seems clear to me if they are appointed by a two-thirds vote and can only be removed by a two-thirds vote, that it is abso- lutely unnecessary to fix a long term of office. I don’t think we are quite con- sistent on this proposition. If it takes two-thirds to appoint those officers their tenure of office is practically secured; I don ’t see where there is any necessity of putting in a long term of office. In view of that I vote aye, although I think we are inconsistent in the whole section. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon Mr. Mac- Millan’s motion, the yeas are 30 and the nays 11, and the motion is carried. MR. COLE : Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out all of Sections 8 and 9 as irrelevant. It is just lumbering up this charter with something that can be taken care of in the code. MR. TAYLOR: I beg leave to differ with Mr. Cole, and hope that the sec- tions will be retained. They safeguard the prerogatives of both these executive officers in giving them initiative. If they do not have initiative their office amounts to very little. The selection of text books and the appointment of their subor- dinates, if not already provided for, in any one of the charter provisions. I wish, however, in justice to the mover of a section corresponding to this in the original report, to make an explanation while I hm on my feet. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon Mr. Cole’s motion that both these sections be stricken out. MR. TAYLOR: Very well. THE CHAIRMAN: And the Chair will suggest that we stick to our mutton. MR. TAYLOR: I am giving reasons why they should be kept in. In the origi- nal report the location of school build- ings, the adoption of plans and specifi- cations for said buildings, for school and educational supplies shall be made only after consultation •with the superinten- dent of schools. Therefore this proviso w r as put in under Section 2, that upon failure to make such a recommendation within a reasonable time after demand the board may make appointments, pro- motions and transfers, and adopt text- books and educational apparatus by a two-thirds vote of all its members. That was not in the original article, but it is in the sections which Mr. Cole moves to strike out. I submit this is a valuable safeguard of the superintendent ’s initia- tive, and it will make the office attractive to men of better calibre. I hope the sec- tion will be retained. MR. JONES : I think Mr. Cole ’s mo- tion should be voted down. I think we should consider in detail each of these paragraphs. There are only two of them, I believe, which are open to criti- cism, and possibly those after a discus- sion will be found not necessary to be incorporated in the charter. Now, with respect to the superinten- dent appointing his assistants, I think very strong arguments are to be made in favor of the superintendent nominat- ing those assistants, and on some of these other questions, I believe that the superintendent should have certain rights secured to him by the charter, and if Mr. Cole’s motion is carried this whole mat- ter would be disposed of without our having had an opportunity to hear the pros and cons upon this and other im- portant matters. MR. WHITE: I rather suspect that Mr. Cole’s motion is suggested in the interests of brevity, perhaps; but I con- tend that for the sake of getting a brief proposition before the Legislature we December 22 683 1906 ought not to cut out of the charter a few things, which, in my judgment, are the most essential features of this pro- posed charter. I noticed that the St. Louis charter, to refer to it again, is very careful to make similar provisions — MR. MERRIAM: Will Dr. White per- mit a question on that point? Is it not true that St. Louis has a home rule char- ter and they can make laws without re- ferring to the Legislature? In other words, there is a code there, is there not? MR. WHITE: Well, I don’t know. MR. MERRIAM: They may alter it themselves. MR. WHITE: I was not attempting, Mr. Chairman, nor shall I attempt to define their charter or code; they are technical terms to me; but in the char- ter or code, the St. Louis charter or code, they are very careful to provide for all this. Now, if there is any es- sential duty devolving upon the superin- tendent of instruction, or upon an edu- cational expert, it is that in the impor- tant matters of educational initiative he shall have certain well defined rights that cannot be changed at the whim of or under the impulse of eight members of the board at any given meeting. I am speaking from a somewhat care- ful study of this whole situation, and I am thoroughly and fully convinced that if you cut out these provisions giving the superintendent certain powers of initiative in the matter of text books, you have taken away what is a very essential thing, for which some of us struggled and fought in this city for the last seven or eight years, feeling the necessity of that. I believe we should take this. up section by section. There may be one or two here that are not very important; but what are one or two? What we want to got absolutely is the very best possible school system for the City of Chicago, and I sincerely trust that Mr. Cole’s motion will not prevail, and that we will consider this section by section. (Cries of “Question.”) MR. MERRIAM: We started out to make, not a code for the City of Chicago, but to get a grant of broad general powers, and we have had quite a lot of discussion up to date. I take the posi- tion that we are now proceeding, instead of getting broader and fuller grants of power, we are now proceeding section by section to do ourselves harm, by lim- iting the powder, by restricting our au- thority, by binding ourselves down to this sort of a detailed, restricted enumer- ation of powers. We have spent more time already upon these few' sections than w^e did upon the fundamental and very important mat- ter of revenue. We have adopted a mo- tion as to whether the age of school chil- dren, the minimum age, should be six years or seven years; we have adopted the question as to w r hether the architect or the auditor or the attorney should be under civil service, or should not be; we are about to discuss now whether we shall take up these two sections and discuss then minutely and in detail. Now, on the question of w r hether or not the superintendent should be consulted in regard to the location of school buildings, is not a very important matter; what do we care, and why should we decide upon whether he should' be consulted or not? Why make a law supported by penal sections of statute and enforced by the police and judiciary regarding as to whether or not the superintendent of schools be consulted? Is that impor- tant? I take the position that that merely cumbers up the charter of the City of Chicago and involves us more deeply in the morass and detail. We have already provided in regard to the fundamental things, that the Board of Education should be reduced to a number— cut down to fifteen members; we have provided that the rules of the board shall not be changed, December 22 684 1906 and so forth, except at regular meetings and by a majority vote of its members; we have provided that there shall be a superintendent of schools; we have pro- vided that there shall be a business man- ager; we have decided and provided that these officers should be appointed by a two-thirds vote, and removed only by a two-thirds vote. It seems to me if we go further and take up in minute detail the duties of these officers as contem- plated by these things, that we are going beyond the original scope of our work. It seems to me that if we are desirous of being free from what has been the difficulty and danger in this regard, that we are going on the back track. Therefore, I support Mr. Cole’s motion to strike out Sections 8 and 9. (Cries of ‘‘Question.”) ME. COLE: Just a word; I just merely wish to say in answer to Dr. White ’s remarks that he thought I might be doing this for the sake of brevity, that that is not it, that I am doing it in the interest of home rule. I want to say that possibly I don ’t know much about educational plans or matters concerned with education. I am not a graduate of the public schools of Chicago ; I was educated in the ‘ ‘ little red school house ’ ’ and I didn ’t quite get through there either; but I do be- lieve that we should not lumber up this charter with a lot of truck that could be taken care of in the code. I am in favor of home rule, and when these matters are brought up in our City Council at home they can be taken care of here, and it is not necessary to take them down to Springfield, and make this charter any heavier than it is now by lumbering it up. You may get the char- ter too heavy. I think these two sec- tions ought to be eliminated, that those matters can be taken care of by the code. Therefore, I wish to say that I did not make this motion in the inter- est of brevity, but I make it in the in- terest of home rule, because I believe they are irrelevant. ME. WHITE: I would like to ask the unanimous consent of the Conven- tion for one word more, if I may have the opportunity. I would like to say another word on this question. (Cries of ‘‘Unanimous consent.”) THE CHAIBMAN : I think you have the unanimous consent ME. WHITE: The proposition, Mr. Chairman, of electing an expert super- intendent of instruction is simply to have at the head of the educational af- fairs of this city a man who knows. Suppose you cut out these sections which provide for the election and the tenure of office of such men, you have left the adjustment of these matters, these edu- cational functions, in the hands of eight members of the board, who may make rules. ME. COLE: ; May I ask a question? ME. WHITE: I should prefer not to answer until a little later, if you have no objection. Now, it is not in the in- terests of home rule in any way at all to cut these things out ; it is in the interests of eight members of the board, who make the rules under which the superintendent shall work. Let me give you an illustration: If, for instance, you need in the school sys- tem of Chicago an educational expert, one who would be competent in the se- lection of text books, say, what other man connected with the entire teaching force, an assistant to the superintendents and teachers, as he should be, if he is a wise man, should be so fitted to suggest the kind of text books to be used, we will say, as the educational expert? You don ’t expect that your eight members will be as well versed in tb£ selection of these important matters as the educa- tional expert, do you, who is elected for that purpose? Suppose any time the board, eight members of it, should take it upon their shoulders to frame a set of rules such as would take away from December 22 685 1906 the superintendent absolutely — as they might and could do at any time — the se- lection of text books, or suggestions to the board itself as to what text books should be used? Then you see one of the most important matters becomes open to the charge of corruption, of pull and of bribery, and all serious things come into the hands of the majority, the eight men. Do you want to re-establish in this system of schools things that have existed in the past, and which have be- come a steneh in the nostrils of decent men? Do you want to concentrate educa- tional responsibility and the selection of text books into the hands of an educa- tional expert whom you can hold respon- sible for success or failure? Gentlemen, believe me this is one of the most important elements of this whole educational end of the charter, and you make the mistake of your lives if you leave this to eight members of any future board. That board may be absolutely an honest one, but it might take it into its head to say at some time, “We will manage this matter of text books, gen- tlemen, ” and what then? They may take it upon themselves to say, “We will frame new rules by which we ourselves may appoint a sub-committee to select text books, irrespective of the education- al expert and of the teaching forces. ’ ’ They could do that at any time, and then you have thrown this selection of text books into the hands of incompe- tent men, an incompetent gathering of men. By taking this question out of the hands of the educational expert you have done that which almost insures in- efficient service. By doing that you not only have done it with regard to public school functions, the present public school functions, but you have opened the whole way in the future to charges of bribery, all sorts of bribery and all sorts of corruption, and all sorts of wrong. That is not a thing that we want to do at all. We want to be able to lay our hands upon one man when things go wrong, when there are sus- picions of bribery and of corruption and be able to say, “Thou art the man,” and not be in a position to have to fasten the responsibility and distribute the responsibility for the right or wrong among eight men. I tell you it is wrong to strike out these sections, and if you do not make this provision in your charter and center these powers in the hands of your super- intendent, in this important matter, in these important educational matters, you practically eliminate from this charter the one thing of all other things that we need. You have been very careful, Mr. Chairman, to insert in this charter or code certain things that are unessen- tial ; but here is a proposition to elimi- nate here what every educational man in the country who knows the operation of school boards and the situation that has obtained in the past, — to eliminate from this code or charter that provision is a great mistake, gentlemen, and some time or another if you do that you will become aware of it in the City of Chi- cago, and will be sorry for it. I hope that it will not be done. MR. REYELL: Mr. Chairman, the action of the committee upon this matter was very deliberate. Yes, the commit- tee’s report. The idea of the commit- tee, put it very briefly, was to compel the Board of Education to recognize cer- tain responsibilities and certain duties which we desired the superintendent of the schools to have, and not to leave it to the board to act upon them as they saw fit. I sincerely hope that you will vote down this proposed amendment, and proceed to act upon this section by sec- tion or paragraph by paragraph. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I heartily concur in the position taken by Dr. Taylor and Dr. White on this pro- position. While I am as much in favor of a home rule charter as any one, I can see danger in leaving these pro- visions out. These provisions, if you December 22 686 1906 will study them, are restrictive on the Board of Education. The Board of 'Education which, if it is left to a home rule charter, will have the enacting of these provisions. I do not believe that you will ever get a Board of Education which w r ill pass laws or or- dinances which restrict their own con- trol, and for that reason I am in favor of inserting these provisions in the char- ter. MR. HILL : Mr. Chairman, for infor- mation, I would like to ask Dr. White one question : Are we to understand, Doctor, that the Board of Education will not have the power to select text books without the consent of the superinten- dent? MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, that is already provided for in this section. THE CHAIRMAN : The question is upon Mr. Cole’s motion. MR. WHITE: May I answer this question, Mr. Chairman? THE CHAIRMAN: Why? MB. WHITE: Because the gentle- man asked me. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Chair make a statement. Mr. Cole ’s motion is to strike these two sections out, and until that motion is disposed of there need be no discussion as to the contents of the various sections to be stricken out. MR. HILL: That may affect the vote of every gentleman here, — the ques- tion I am asking; I know it will affect mine. MR. WHITE: May I answer that question, Mr. Chairman? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: It is provided here specifically in this second paragraph, as it ought to be provided, that in case the superintendent refuses or delays such suggestions or selections then the board may proceed to do that themselves. MR. HILL: That does not answer my question, Pr. White, that does not answer my question, that in case if he does not recommend a series of text books, the board may do so. MR. ROSENTHAL: I rise to a point of order. This is a discussion now of the details of these sections, and the question is whether we should consider the details at all. MR. HILL: Let me explain one mo- ment, and then you will see what I am trying to get at, and it is for informa- tion purely, and not for discussion ai all. As I read this, if the superintendent does not recommend any series of text books, the board may, but if the super- intendent does recommend any series of text books, the board has no power to go back of that at all. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would suggest that these sections speak for themselves and they cover those sub- jects and they may be amended when they are taken up section by section; but the question now is whether they shall be considered, and until that mo- tion is put, all this discussion upon the contents of these sections is out or or- der. MR. McGOORTY: Mr. Chairman, I would move that the question be di- vided so that following the custom of this Convention, each paragraph may be considered by itself. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair can- not see how Mr. Cole’s motion to reject everything can be divided. MR. McGOORTY: Well, that is that we take it up paragraph by paragraph. THE CHAIRMAN: If the Conven- tion will vote Mr. Cole’s motion down, a second motion can be made to take up whatever it pleases, but the motion now will be upon Mr. Cole’s motion to strike out Section 8 and 9 and the Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Cole, Ritter, Erickson, Guerin, Hill, Linehan, McKinley, Merriam, O’Donnell, Owens, Patterson, Post, Shanahan — 13. Nays — Beebe, Bennett, Brosseau, Brown, Carey, Crilly, Dixon, G. W.; December 22 687 1906 Eckhart, J. W.; Eidmann, Gansbergen, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, MacMillan, McGoorty, Oehne, Raymer, Revell, Ro- senthal, Sethness, Shepard, Snow, Sun- ny, Taylor, Yopicka, Werno, White, Zimmer — 28. (During roll call.) MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman, may I speak on this question now? THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the motion to reject? MR. HILL: May I explain my vote? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MR. HILL: Now, if I understand the English language, and I always had an idea since I arrived at the age of discretion that I understood something about it, this section does not say or at least leads to the conclusion that if the superintendent of education does not recommend, or if he should recom- mend one series of books, the Board of Education has no power to go over his head and select another. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. MR. HILL: I want to explain my vote, and I believe I have some rights here. THE CHAIRMAN: I think, perhaps, we had better let Mr. Hill explain his vote. MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I think I can answer Mr. Hill’s question. MR. HILL: I desire, Mr. Chairman, an opportunity to explain my vote. THE CHAIRMAN: There cannot be any discussion of this matter. Let the Secretary proceed with the roll call. MR. HILL: I want to be recorded as voting aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hill votes aye. THE SECRETARY: Hill, aye. THE CHAIRMAN: To amend Mr. Cole’s motion to strike out Sections 8 and 9, the yeas are 13 and the nays are 28, and the motion is lost. MR. G. W. DIXON: Mr. Chairman, I move that when we adjourn we ad- journ till next Wednesday afternoon, at 2 o’clock. MR. SHEPARD: The motion I wanted to make is that we adjourn to meet on Wednesday, Thursday and Fri- day afternoons, at 2 o’clock, and that when we adjourn now, we meet again on Wednesday afternoon, at 2 o’clock. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor signify by saying aye MR. YOPICKA: I move that we meet on Thursday for the first time. MR. WERNO : There are some mem- bers of the City Council who are not able to be here, who are also members of this Convention. THE CHAIRMAN : That meeting can be called for the morning. MR. WERNO: When? THE CHAIRMAN: Wednesday after- noon. The Chair will put the motion. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye; all those opposed, no. The motion is carried. Let the Secre- tary read the next section. MR. RAYMER: I move that we take that up section by section. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection, it will be so ordered. The Secretary read No. 1, of Section VIII. MR. J. W. ECKHART: I move the adoption of No. 1. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor of No. 1 say aye; opposed, no. It is carried. The Secretary will read the next section. The Secretary read No. 2. MR. REVELL: I move its adoption. MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hill asked a question, which I think is a very pertinent one in respect to this section. Now, the committee made a report on this point, and the report is printed on page 13 of the record, and that report, as I understand it, is en- tirely different from this section, as it has been presented by Dr. Taylor. The point that Mr. Hill made hits the nail on the head. It will be noted on page December 22 688 1906 13 after stating that nominations shall be made for the superintendent, it can- tains this proviso, the first column of page 13: “ Provided that the Board of Education may make appointments and introduce text books and educational apparatus by a two-thirds vote of all its members. ’ ’ That is, by a two-thirds vote it should go over the head of the superintendent. And the way Dr. Tay- lor has, without authority, made it is that he has inserted the words: “Upon his failure to make such recommenda- tion within a reasonable time” — that after a time they can do this by a two- thirds vote. And now I believe that changes the spirit of the committee’s recommendation entirely and makes it an absolutely useless recommendation. If I were a member of the school board and the superintendent should refuse to recommend, I would vote in favor of his discharge — of discharging that su- perintendent at once; and I believe that if we are to vote on the recommenda- tion of the committee, we should con- sider the proviso as it is printed on page 13, which is a very different mat- ter from that which is printed in this paragraph 2. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman THE CHAIRMAN: Just a moment. The Convention voted to consider this as a substitute for the printed com- mittee’s report. There seems to be no reason why the committee ’s report should not be moved as a substitute to that if Senator Jones wishes to bring it before the house. MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I move you as a substitute that in paragraph 2, page 645, after the words, “on the recommendation of the superintendent” — that they be erased, and that the fol- lowing be substituted in lieu thereof: “provided that the Board of Education may make appointments and introduce text books and educational apparatus upon a two-thirds vote of all its mem- bers. ’ ’ I have quoted that portion from page 13 of the record. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we have devoted considerable time to the discussion of this matter. I do not think we should discuss it partly today and partly next Wednesday, and I move you, therefore, that we adjourn. MR. SHEPARD: I rise to speak just a word on that motion. If we can spend half an hour here discussing these sev- eral provisions, we should get just that much further along. We have got this thing in our minds THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, we have not adjourned yet. MR. POST: Well, I move to strike out his- remarks. MR. ZIMMER: I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I think the Convention acted hastily in providing for Wednes- day afternoon. There is an important meeting of the local transportation committee for that afternoon and Borne members of the Convention will be there on Wednesday afternoon. Con- sequently we could not have the meet- ing then. I would like to attend this Convention, if possible, but I cannot be in two places at once. It will affect the Chairman of the Convention as well. I think we should meet on Thursday, not Wednesday. MR. REYELL: Mr. Chairman THE CHAIRMAN: One at a time, gentlemen. MR. ZIM1VIER: I have no objection to Wednesday night or Thursday. THE CHAIRMAN: We will require at least three more meetings of this Convention to complete the work now on the Chairman’s desk, and the Chair is not desiring to force any meeting, but if you are going to adjourn at 5 o ’clock, and going* to start half an hour late, and going to abbreviate the num- ber of our meetings, it is unlikely that we will ever reach an end of our task. MR, ZIMMER: It is no fault of December 22 689 1906 mine that you do not call it on time. I am here promptly on time every meet- ing of this Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: But unfortunate- ly you and I do not constitute a quorum. MR. ZIMMER: I think the majority of the members of this Convention should say whether we should meet on Wednesday or Thursday. MR. REYELL: Mr. Chairman, the Convention has to decide upon that mat- ter. There are members here who can- not be here Thursday. MR. WERNO: Let us make it Wednesday night. MR. ZIMMER: The council meeting is Wednesday night. THE CHAIRMAN : It is a week from Wednesday. MR. WERNO: The City Council doesn’t meet then? THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, let us MR. WERNO: The City Council does not meet until January the second. That is a week from next Wednesday. MR. RE YELL: Let us have a vote on it. THE CHAIRMAN : All those in fa- vor of meeting Wednesday night and Thursday afternoon and Friday after- noon, say aye; opposed, no. It is car- ried. The next meeting will be on Wednesday night, and then Thursday afternoon and Friday afternoon. MR, MacMILLAN: Good. MR, O’DONNELL: Mr. Chairman, I understand there is a motion made to postpone further consideration of this question here until the next meeting, and I am heartily in favor of such post- ponement. The adoption of this sec- tion — MR. ROSENTHAL: I rise to a point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal, let Mr. O’Donnell finish. MR. O’DONNELL: The adoption of this section here as printed in these pro- ceedings means the abolition entirely of the Board of Education, if it is car- ried as set out here. In consequence it is the most important section that we have to deal with in this whole mat- ter, calling for the most earnest con- sideration on the part of the members of this Convention. I suggest that it be postponed until our next meeting. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal moves to adjourn. Before that motion is put, I would like to have the resolu- tion introduced by Mr. Patterson read. MR. PATTERSON: Mr. Chairman, will you have the clerk read my resolu- tion? The Secretary read the resolution as hereinafter printed. MR. PATTERSON: Mr. Chairman, I just want to speak one minute on this proposition, because, probably, I will not be here when it is called up. I consent for that purpose. (Cries of 1 ‘agreed.’) THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed. MR. PATTERSON: This proposition was somewhat considered by the harbor committee, but the committee was un- able to report in time and in due form a law which would take care of this proposition. Now, this which we pro- pose simply means that the jurisdiction of land now occupied by the United States Steel Corporation, and by the Chicago Beach Hotel, and by the other concerns that continue to appropriate land without any let or hindrance that the jurisdiction of these lands shall be vested in the city. The jurisdiction of these lands lies now in the State of Illinois, and the State of Illinois is not raising a finger to prevent this continued stealing and encroaching. And as long as the State of Illinois has jurisdiction over these lands, this process, as far as we can tell, will continue; and it is now con- tinuing, and nothing will be done to check the operation of these great con- cerns unless some such proposition is adopted. December 22 690 1906 The state, as far as I know, has not even any officers to enforce provisions against land stealing; if it has, those officers are not working. They have never been heard from. But when the city has undertaken to stop and prevent encroachment by these concerns, it has been met by the fact that the state should enforce the laws. If we do not take care of our own harbor, nobody will. If we don’t take care of our own harbor, the steel corpor- ation is going to get it. Now, I make these remarks without going through the ordinary parliamen- tary procedure, because I may not have another chance; but it is mighty im- portant that this matter should be con- sidered for the people of this city; whether they are going to let the steel, corporation take it, or whether we will control our own harbor. If we do not have some such provision as this in the charter, the stealing will go on. Now, gentlemen, if we want something effec- tive, something that is going to give us control of our own harbors, we will have to adopt a provision of this sort; and when it comes up I hope that the members of this Convention will see that it gets a full discussion. MR. BENNETT: I have a resolution which I would like to have read. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the resolu- tion be read. MR. BENNETT: I ask that it be deferred. THE CHAIRMAN: Let me say that Mr. Patterson ’s resolution will be printed in the proceedings and taken up at the proper time. The Secretary will read the resolution by Mr. Bennett. The Secretary read the resolution, as hereinafter printed. THE CHAIRMAN: It will be printed and deferred. MR. J. W. ECKHART: I have an- other resolution, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Eckhart. The Chair has an announcement to make before the Convention adjourns. The Secretary will read Mr. Eckhart ’s resolution. The Secretary read the resolution, as hereinafter printed. THE CHAIRMAN: That will be printed. I just want to say a word before we adjourn. The county has ap- pointed a Civil Service Commission and has requested the Chairman of this Con- vention to designate one of the mem- bers of the Convention to act with that commission, and I appoint Mr. J. W. Eckhart as the representative of this Convention at that civil service confer- ence. Is there any further business? MR. RAYMER: Mr. Chairman, in regard to the proposition submitted by Mr. Pattersona moment ago, I have been speaking with Mr. Patterson about it and the suggestion is made that it should be submitted to the law commit- tee to frame a proper provision carry- ing out the provision of his recommenda- tion. THE CHAIRMAN: If there are no objections, it will be so ordered, but the Chair is fearful it will not get a report from the law committee. The Chair desires to call attention to the fact that the civil service proposi- tion of Mr. Rosenthal was recommitted to a committee to be reported upon in ten days. It is somewhat over the ten days now. MR. POST: Before adjournment, I wish to say in reference to this motion of Mr. Patterson, regarding Mr. Patter- son ’s resolution, it seems to me that it should be accompanied with some in- struction before a report. I hope it will be made a special order so it will not be lost sight of somewhere in the basket and we adjourn without considering it. THE CHAIRMAN: We will bear it in mind. MR. POST: I move to make it a December 22 691 1906 special order for Thursday night. We can have it then before us and we can •consider it Thursday afternoon. THE CHAIRMAN: Thursday after- noon. Once more: Wednesday night, Thursday afternoon and Friday after- noon. And the Convention stood adjourned to meet Wednesday, December 26th, at 7:30 o’clock p. m. December 22 692 1906 MEMORANDA. These memoranda indicate the various matters adopted by the Convention. (See page 50 and succeeding pages of the proceedings. I. SCOPE OF PROPOSED LEGIS- LATION. Action on all paragraphs under this section has been deferred. 1. A complete charter shall be drawn and submitted to the Legislature em- bodying the resolutions adopted by this Convention. Alternative to 1. Separate bills shall be drawn covering the following sub- jects: a. Consolidation (including parks), b. Public utilities, c. Education, d. Revenue, e. Amendments (if any) of the Mu- nicipal Court Act! f. All other charter provisions, which shall be submitted to a separate vote for adoption. II. CONSOLIDATION. 1. The corporate authorities existing at present for the government of the park systems of Chicago shall be abol- ished and the management of the parks shall become a department of the city government. 2. The administration of the public school system of the city of Chicago and of the Public Library shall con- stitute departments of the city govern- ment. III. THE MAYOR. 1. The charter shall continue sub- stantially the provisions of the pres- ent laws regarding the qualifications and executive functions of the mayor. 2. The charter shall continue the provisions of the present laws regard- ing the relation of the mayor to the city council. Resolved, that it is the sense of this Convention that a clause be inserted in the charter designating a city official who shall act as mayor during the ab- sence or inability of the mayor. First Alternative to 2 b. The mayor shall have a right to a seat in the city council, but shall have no vote. He shall have the right to speak and present messages and intro- duce measures subject to the general rules of procedure of the city council. Second Alternative to 2: The charter shall continue the pres- ent provisions of the law regarding the relation of the mayor to the city coun- cil, except that he shall not preside at the meetings of the city council, but the city council shall elect its own presiding officer from its members. 3. The veto power of the mayor shall be as now prescribed by law. 4. The term of office of the mayor shall be four years. IV. ELECTIONS. First alternative to 1 : Elective city officers shall be nominated under a sys- tem of direct primaries, with appropri- ite provision for independent nomina- tions by petition. 2. The names of all the nominees for each office shall be printed on the ballot under the title of the office for which they are candidates, in alphabeti- cal order, and the designation of the party, if any, to which they belong. The following resolution on the sub- ject of suffrage for women is still pend- ing: 3. The charter shall contain no pro- December 22 693 1906 vision for conferring the right of suf- frage on women. 4. a. The election of all city offi- cers, including those for the municipal court, shall be held in the spring. Pro- vided, however, that judges of the mu- nicipal court shall be elected at a time when no offices other than judicial are to be filled. 5. Candidates and political commit- tees shall be required to make sworn statements of receipts and expenditures of any campaign for nomination or election. V. CIVIL SERVICE. 1. All departments of the city gov- ernment shall be under an appropriate civil service law. Alternative to 1: a. The civil service law shall apply to the department of public parks. The application of the civil service law to the department of public parks shall not operate in and of itself to dis- charge the present employees. b. The civil service law shall apply to tne municipal court. The Bailiff and Chief Clerk of the Municipal Court shall be subject to re- moval by a majority of the judges of the court, after a hearing, for incompe- tency, inefficiency, malfeasance or mis- feasance in office. The reasons for such removal shall be specified in writing and shall be spread at large upon the records of the court. Section 2 of Civil Service, together with resolution printed in the proceed- ings of December 6, have been referred to the Committee on Municipal Elec- tions, Appointment and Tenure of Office, with instructions to report to the Con- vention within ten days. VI. THE CITY COUNCIL. The charter shall provide for redis- tricting the city into seventy wards, of compact and contiguous territory, and with an equitable distribution of area and population, as soon as possible after the adoption of this charter, one aider- man to be elected from each ward. The city shall thereafter be redis- tricted by the City Council every ten years after the federal census has been taken, but no more than seventy wards shall be made. 2. The compensation of aldermen shall be at the rate of thirty-five hun- dred dollars per annum. The term of office of aldermen shall be four years. The aldermen shall be elected at the same time as the mayor. VII. POWERS OF THE CITY COUN- CIL IN GENERAL. 1. The powers of the city council shall be as now prescribed by law, ex- cept as modified by this charter. The city council shall have all powers of local legislation which can, under the con- stitution, be vested in a municipality; subject to the constitution of the state, the provisions of the charter, and the general laws of the state. 2. The specification of particular powers shall never be construed as a limitation upon the general powers granted by the charter; it being in- tended to grant and bestow upon the City of Chicago all the powers of mu- nicipal government which can constitu- tionally be delegated to it by the legislature, and which are not expressly prohibited to it by this charter, or by the constitution of the state; and are not in conflict with any general law of the state. 3. No ordinance shall be passed finally on the day it is introduced, except when approved by an affirmative vote of two- thirds of all the members of the city council. December 22 694 1906 VIII. POWERS OF THE CITY COUN- CIL WITH REGARD TO OFFICES. The office of City Clerk shall cease to be a Charter office, and the City Council shall have power by ordinance to provide for the method of choosing the City Clerk and to provide for the duty of the City Clerk. The City Treasurer shall be ex-officio city collector. 3. The City Council shall have power to investigate any department of the city government and the official acts and conduct any city officer and the making, terms, and performance of any public contract, and for the purpose of ascertaining facts in connection with such investigation to compel the attend- ance of witnesses and the production of material documents and books. IX. POLICE POWER. 1. The police power of the city shall extend to the prevention of crime, to the preservation and advancement of local peace, safety, morals, health, order and comfort, and to the prevention of fraud and extortion within the community, by measures of regulation, licensing, require- ment of bonds, inspection, registration, restraint and prohibition, as well as by the establishment of municipal services. X. REVENUE. GENERAL TAXATION. Section 1. The City Council of the City of Chicago shall annually in the first quarter of its fiscal year, levy a general tax for all city, school, park and library purposes for such year, not ex- ceeding in the aggregate, exclusive of the amounts levied for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness per centum of the assessed value of the taxable property of said city as assessed and equalized according to law for gen- eral taxation. The said City Council in its annual levy shall specify the re- spective amounts levied for the pay- ment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, the amount levied for general city purposes, amount levied for educational purposes, the amount levied for school building purposes, the amount levied for park purposes and the amount levied for li- brary purposes. The county clerk shall extend upon the collector’s warrant all of such taxes, subject to the limita- tion herein contained, in a single col- umn as the City of Chicago tax. In case the aggregate amount levied, ex- clusive of the amount levied for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, shall exceed per centum of such assessed value such ex- cess shall be disregarded, and ' the resi- due only treated as certified for exten- sion. In such case all items in such tax levy except those for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, shall be re- duced pro rata. The city treasurer of the City of Chicago shall keep separate funds in conformity to said tax levy, which funds shall be paid out by him, upon order of the proper authority for the purposes only for which the same were levied. 2. The Board of Education of the City of Chicago shall in January of each year prepare and transmit to the City Council a statement of its receipts and expenditures for the preceding calen- dar year stating therein the sources of its receipts and the several objects and purposes of its expenditures. It shall also prepare and transmit to the City Council in January of each year an es- timate of its expenditures for the cur- rent calendar year, stating therein the several objects and purposes of such expenditures. 3. The Board of Park Commissioners of the City of Chicago shall in January of each year prepare and transmit to the City Council a statement of its rc- December 22 695 1906 ceipts and expenditures for the preceding calendar year stating therein the sources of its receipts and the several objects and purposes of its expendi- tures. It shall also prepare and transmit to the City Council in January of each year an estimate of its expendi- tures for the current year, stating therein the several objects and purposes of such expenditures. 4. The Board of Library Directors of the City of Chicago shall in January of each year prepare and transmit to the City Council a statement of its receipts and ex- penditures for the preceding calendar year, stating therein the sources of its receipts and the several objects and pur- poses of its expenditures. It shall also prepare and transmit to the City Council in January of each year an estimate of its expenditures for the current year, stating thereing the several objects and purposes of such expenditures. Action on the following propositions has been deferred pending the report of the special commitee on revenue in- formation. Alternative to 1: a. The limit of the tax rate fixed by the charter shall not apply to taxes levied for school purposes, but taxes shall be levied for school build- ing and educational purposes as now provided by law. b. The limit of the tax rate to be fixed by the charter shall not apply to taxes levied for library purposes, but the City Council shall annually levy for library purposes a tax of not less than one mill and not more than one and one-half mill on the dollar on all taxable property in the city. c. The City Council shall have power to levy annually a tax of two mills on the dollar on all taxable property for a police pension fund. 2. The City Council shall have power to levy a tax of one per cent, additional to the rate fixed by the above resolu- tion for a specific purpose or purposes, provided that such additional tax levy shall have been approved by a major- ity of .those voting on the question at a general or special election. 3. a. The City Council shall have power to tax and license, or either, any trade, occupation or business carried on wholly or in part within the city limits, and all persons, firms or corporations owning or using franchises or privi- leges. 4. a. The City Council shall also have power to tax or license all wheeled vehicles used upon the streets of the city, or any particular class of such vehicles. The income therefrom shall be used in the repair and improvement of streets and alleys of the city ex- clusively. Alternative to 5: The City Council shall have power to make local im- provements by special assessment or by special taxation of contiguous prop- erty or otherwise; but not more than 50 per cent, of the cost of repaving any street or alley shall thus be im- posed upon contiguous property, after such street or alley has once been paved, and the expense thereof paid in whole or in part by special assessment or special taxation. XI. INDEBTEDNESS. 1. The charter shall vest in the city the power to assume and incur debts and issue bonds in the manner and to the extent that such power is permitted to be granted by the constitutional amendment of 1904. XII. EXPENDITURES. 1. The provisions of the present city act regarding the annual appropriation ordinanc, the limitation of expendi- December 22 696 1906 lures and contracts by such appropria- tions, the keeping of a separate fund for each appropriation, and the require- ment of warrants for payments, shall be substantially embodied in the charter. XIII. PROPERTY. 1. The city may acquire property by purchase or condemnation for any pur- pose for which it may exercise the power of taxation. The following paragraph together with all substitutes and amendments thereto as printed in the proceedings of December 14, 1906, have been re-re- ferred to the Committee on Rules, Pro- cedure and General Plan. The com- mittee report will be found under ‘ ‘ Res- olutions.” 2. The city may so acquire property outside of as well as within the city lim- its for any municipal purpose. XIV. CONTRACTS. 1. Municipal services may be per- formed and municipal works carried out by the city directly or by means of con- tract. XV. STREETS AND PUBLIC PLACES. All private temporary users of space above or below the level of streets, al- leys or other public places shall pay compensation to the city according to some definite scale to be fixed by gen- eral ordinance. This provision shall not apply to grants for public utilities. XVI. PUBLIC UTILITIES. 1. The provisions of the Mueller law and the limitations contained therein (including the twenty-year limit on franchises), except as herein otherwise provided, shall be extended to all in- tramural railways, subways, telephone, telegraph, gas, electric lighting and power plants, and other local public utility works operated in, over, under or upon the streets and public places of the city, also to docks, wharves and their necessary appurtenances. 2. The present powers regarding water works and water supply shall be con- tinued. 3. Any consent granted by the city for the private operation of public util- ity works shall be made subject to the continuing exercise of the city’s street and police powers concerning the struc- ture or works permitted, whether re- served in the grant or not. Alternative to 4: Such consent hereafter granted, shall further be subject to the power of the city, whether expressly reserved in the grant or not, to make reasonable regu- lations of the charges to be made in the operation of such public utilities. The city shall have no power to grant away or limit the subsequent exercise of this right, except that the question of rea- sonableness of any such regulation shall always be determined with due regard to the provisions and limitations of the grant under which such public utility is being operated. 5. Such consent shall further be sub- ject to the right of the city to require adequate service and reasonable exten- sions at all times. No city officer or employe shall di- rectly or indirectly ask for, demand or accept for his own use, or for the use of another, any free pass, frank, gratui- ty, gratuitous service, or discrimina- tion from any person or corporation holding or using any franchise, privi- lege or license granted by the city. But this prohibition shall not ex- tend to the furnishing of free transpor- tation to members of the police and fire departments while on duty. The charter shall contain appropriate provisions for the enforcement of this prohibition. The following proposition as offered by Mr. Snow (and amended from the December 22 697 1906 floor by Messrs. Rosenthal and Shepard) is still pending. Amend proposition 1, Section 16, Pub- lic Utilities, by adding the following: Provided that when the city shall own and operate a public utility then and in such case the city shall keep separate accounts for each public utility, and that the income from each service shall be used solely for the benefit of that utility exactly as though it were an independent business enterprise; and reasonable sinking funds, requirements for improvements or extensions, the price of or charge for the service ren- dered or commodity furnished by such utility shall be lowered, to the end that the patrons of such utility shall direct- ly secure the greatest benefit of the city’s ownership thereof, and no such utility shall be so operated as to render its charge for service an indirect form of taxation. XVII. PARKS, BOULEVARDS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS. 1. The management of the parks and parkways and small parks, and of any forest preserve or outer belt park sys- tem shall be vested in a board of park commissioners consisting of nine mem- ber who shall be appointed by the mayor of the City of Chicago — three from the West Side, three from the South Side and three from the North Side; three for a term of two years, three for a term of four years, and three for a term of six years, their successors to be ap- pointed for a term of six years. Any vacancy which may occur shall be filled by appointment of the mayor, for the unexpired term. No appointment, how- ever, shall be acted upon until at a subsequent meeting of the City Coun- cil. The park commissioners shall be ap- pointed by the mayor, with the consent of two-thirds of the members of the City Council. The following paragraph was de- ferred, for consideration together with the subject of Revenue. 2. Taxes may be levied and bonds is- sued for park purposes by the City Council only upon the request of the park board; and park funds shall be paid out only upon the order of the park board. XVIII. EDUCATION. I. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCA- TION. The City of Chicago shall constitute one school district. The public school system of the city shall be under the management and control of a depart- ment of education at the head of which there shall be a Board of Education, and no power by this charter vested in the Board of Education or in any officer of the department shall be exercised by the City Council except as by this char- ter otherwise provided. II. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION. The management of the public school system of the city shall be vested in a board of education of fifteen members to be appointed by the mayor, with the approval of a majority of the City Council. All nominations of members of Board of Education by the mayor shall lie over at least one week before action for confirmation or rejection thereon by the City Council. They shall serve for a term of four years, except that on the first appoint- ment of the board three members shall be chosen for one year, four for two years, four for three years, and four for four years, and annually thereafter members shall be appointed to suc- ceed those whose terms expire. The members of the Board of Educa- tion shall serve without compensation. To be eligible for appointment to the board a person shall be at least thirty years of age and a resident and citizen December 22 698 1906 of the United States and of the City of Chicago for at least five years im- mediately preceding the appointment. Section III, with amendments, has been re-referred to the Committee on RULES, PROCEDURE and GENERAL PLAN. The committee report will be found under “Resolutions.’ ’ III. SCHOOL PROPERTY. The charter shall re-enact in sub- stance the provisions of the existing law regarding the acquisition, tenure, and disposition of property for school purposes, but no real estate shall be leased for a term longer than five years, nor shall the terms of any existing lease be altered without the concurrence of the City Council. BY MR. B. A. ECKHART: Strike out all after the word “pur- poses,” in the fifth line, and add “but no real estate shall be leased for a term longer than five years without the con- currence of the City Council, nor shall the terms of any lease be altered with- out such concurrence.” BY MR. EIDMANN: Amend by inserting after the word “years,” at the end of the sixth line, the following “unless with the concur- rence of the City Council by a three- fourths’ vote.” BY MR. ROSENTHAL: Amend by inserting after the word “lease,” at the end of the seventh line, the following “the unexpired term of which is longer than five years.” IY. POWERS AND ADMINISTRA- TIVE DUTIES OF THE BOARD. In addition to the powers now vested in it by law, the board of education shall have power to establish as well as maintain schools of all grades and kinds, including normal schools, schools for defectives and delinquents, schools for the blind, the deaf and the crip- pled, schools or classes in manual train- ing, constructional and avocational teach- ing, domestic arts and physical culture, extension schools and lecture courses, and all other educational institutions and facilities. It shall have the power to co-operate with the juvenile court and to make ar- rangements with the public and other libraries and museums for the purpose of extending the privileges of the pub- lic library and museums to the attend- ants of schools and the public in the neighborhood of the schools. The board of education shall have the power to fix the school age of pupils, which in kindergartens shall not be under four years and in grade schools shall not be under six years. Action on Section V has been de- ferred pending the report of the special committee on revenue information. Y. REVENUE. The charter shall preserve the provi- sions of the present law regarding the levy and collection of taxes for school purposes, except that it shall not em- body the limitation of the power to support schools to the period of nine months of the year. The provisions of the present law re- garding the care and custody of school funds shall be re-enacted. The board of education shall have power by and with the concurrence of the City Council to issue bonds to raise money for purchasing school sites and for the erection of school buildings, and provision shall be made for the pay- ment of such bonds out of the school building tax. VI. EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF THE BOARD. Rules of the board of education shall be enacted or changed, money appro- priated or expended, salaries fixed or changed, courses of instruction and text- December 22 669 1906 books adopted or changed (subject to additional provisions hereinafter con- tained), only at regular meetings of the board of education, and by a vote of the majority of the full membership of the board of education, and upon such propositions, and upon all propositions requiring for their adoption at least a majority of all the members of the board, the ayes and nays be taken and recorded. VII. OFFICERS. The board of education shall annual- ly choose one of its members as presi- dent, and one as vice-president of the board. The board shall appoint as ex- ecutive officers a superintendent of education and a business manager, and may also appoint or provide for the ap- pointment of such other officers and employes as it may deem necessary, and shall, subject to the provisions of this charter prescribe their duties, compen- sations and terms of office, but the term of office of the superintendent of educa- tion and of the business manager shall not be less than four years. And the salary of no officer shall be lowered dur- ing his term of office. The requirement that an officer of the city shall at the time of his appoint- ment be a resident of the city, shall not apply to the superintendent of education. The appointment and removal of the superintendent of education, business manager, attorney and auditor, shall not be subject to the civil service law, but they shall be removable only for cause, by a vote of not less than two-thirds of all the members of the board, upon written charges to be heard by the board on due notice to the officers charged therewith, but pending the hearing of the charges, such officers may by a two-thirds vote, be suspended by the board. The concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the board shall be re- quired to appoint the superintendent of education and the business manager. VIII. SUPERINTENDENT OF EDU- CATION. (1.) The superintendent of education shall have a seat in the Board of Educa* tion, but no vote. The following sections are still pend- ing: (2.) Appointments, promotions and transfers of teachers, principals and other educational and attendance officers shall be made, and text-books and educational apparatus shall be in- troduced by the board of education up- on the recommendation of the superin- tendent, but upon his failure to make such a recommendation within a reason- able time after demand, the board may make appointments, promotions and transfers, and adopt text-books and edu- cational apparatus by a two-thirds vote of all its members, BY MR. JONES: Amend by strik- ing out everything after the word “su- perintendent ’ ’ in the eighth line, and inserting in lieu thereof “Provided, that the Board of Education may make appointments and introduce text books and educational apparatus by a two- thirds vote of all its members. (3.) He shall be consulted as to loca- tion and plans of school buildings and as to plans and specifications for educa- tional supplies. (4.) Text-books and apparatus once adopted shall not be changed within four years after their adoption, except upon vote of not less than two-thirds of all the members of the board of educa- tion. (5.) The superintendent of education shall nominate for appointment by the board of education, assistant and dis- trict superintendents and principals of schools, and shall have power, with the consent of the board, to remove them upon complaint and for cause. December 22 700 1906 IX. THE BUSINESS MANAGER. The business manager shall have the general care and supervision of the property and the business matters of the department of education. He shall with the concurrence of the board of education appoint his subordi- nate officers and employes, among whom there shall be a trained architect and a trained engineer. In matters affecting the general poli- cy of his administration he shall be subject to the direction of the board. X. APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS, ETC. (1.) Appointments, promotions and transfers of teachers shall be made for merit only, and after satisfactory ser- vice for a probationary period of three years, appointments of teachers and principals shall become permanent, sub- ject to removal for cause upon written charges, but the board need not retain in service more principals or teachers than the needs of the schools require. (2.) The standing of teachers for appointment and promotion shall be en- trusted to a bord to be constituted by the board of education, of which the su- perintendent of education shall be the head. XI. COMPULSORY EDUCATION. The maximum age of compulsory school attendance shall be increased from fourteen to sixteen. But the children between the ages of fourteen years and sixteen shall not be required to attend school for such time during said years as they may be in good faith engaged in regular employment not less than five hours daily for not less than five days in each week. XII. PENSIONS. The Board of Education may, and with the co-operation and consent of the City Council, establish a permanent pen- sion system for teachers, principals and other employes of the Board of Educa- tion. It may be maintained in part from the public funds to be provided by the city, and in part by voluntary, fixed and proportionate contributions, to be retained from the salaries of teachers and principals. The pension system, as now administered, shall continue until the same is organized for administra- tion under and by virtue of the provi- sions hereof. XIII. REPORT AND EXAMINA- TION OF ACCOUNTS. The mayor shall, as often as yearly, and may as often as semi-annually ap- point certified public accountants, to ex- amine and audit the accounts of the Board of Education, and the report thereof, together with any recommenda- tion of such accountants, as to change in the business methods of the board, or of any of its departments, officers, or employes, shall be made to the mayor and to the Board of Education, and be spread upon the records of the latter. The expenses of such audit shall be paid by the board. BY MR, RITTER: The charter shall provide that no po- lice station, fire engine house or patrol barn shall hereafter be built within 400 feet of any school building. XIX. LIBRARY. 1. The management of the public library shall be vested in a board of nine library directors, constituted as at present, and with the present powers and duties, except as herein otherwise provided. 2. The term of office of members of the library board shall be six years, three retiring every two years. 3. The library board may establish branch libraries and reading rooms, sub- ject to the approval of the City Coun- cil. XX. PENAL, CHARITABLE AND REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS. 1. The charter shall grant to the December 22 701 1906 city, in addition to the powers which it has now: a. Authority to maintain alms- houses. b. Authority to maintain free lodg- ing houses, and free employment bu- reaus in connection therewith. c. Authority to maintain creches for infants. d. Authority to maintain training schools for dependent and indigent children. c 2. The city shall have the power to contract with the county of Cook or otherwise provide for the detentions, housings and care of indigent persons, prisoners, or dependent or delinquent children. This section shall contain a clause that the City of Chicago can contract with the county of Cook for the erec- tion and maintenance of a Juvenile Court building. XXI. INITIATIVE AND REFEREN- DUM. The charter shall provide that any or- dinance granting any franchise or the use of any street or alley or space below as well as above the level of the sur- face of the streets, alleys and other public places for any public utility, shall not go into effect until sixty (60) days after the passage thereof, and if within that time twenty (20) per cent, of the voters of the city petition for the submission of such ordinance to popular vote at the next succeeding general or special election, such ordinance shall not go into effect until and unless at such election it shall have been ap- proved by a majority of the voters vot- ing upon the question. XXII. RELATION OF THE CHAR- TER TO OTHER LAWS, AND AMENDMENTS TO CHARTER. The following section has been re- ferred to the LAW COMMITTEE for an opinion as to its constitutionality. 1. Any act of the general assembly that shall be passed after the adoption of this charter relating to the govern- ment or the affairs of the cities of the state or of cities containing a stated number of inhabitants or over shall be construed as not applying to the City of Chicago. 2. The charter shall re-enact the pro- visions (not inconsistent with these res- olutions) of the existing laws applicable to the government of the City of Chi- cago, and shall vest in the City Council power to amend such of these provisions as the charter may specify. The following sections have been re- ferred to the LAW COMMITTEE for an opinion as to their constitutionality: 3. The City Council shall have power to amend any part of this charter with the approval of three-fifths of those voting at the proposed change at any election, provided that the tax rate established by this charter shall not be increased nor the twenty-year limit on franchise be altered [extended], nor the municipal court act amended, nor any provision be made for the exercise of any power not strictly local or munici- pal in its character. 4. The charter shall make provision for submission to popular vote of amendments to the charter, proposed by a petition of per cent, of the voters of the city, such proposed amendments to become part of the charter when ap- proved by a majority of the votes cast at the election (or: upon the question). Provided, that in this manner the tax rate established by this charter shall not be increased, nor the twenty-year limit on franchises be altered, nor the municipal court act amended, nor any provision be made for the exercise of any power not strictly local or munici- pal in its character. December 22 702 1906 5. Nothing in this act shall be con- strued to modify, impair or affect or to confer upon the City Council power to pass any ordinance modifying, impair- ing or conflicting with the provisions of Section 18 of an act entitled “An act to provide for the annexation of cities, incorporated towns and villages or parts of same to cities, incorporated towns and villages” approved April 25th, 1889. Resolutions offered from the floor of the Convention, but not acted upon. BY. MR. SHEPARD: Resolved, That in any act providing for the formation and disbursement of the police pension fund the following provision be incorporated: That the members of the police de- partment to be included in the bene- fits of such pension fund shall be as follows: The General Superintendent of Po- lice, Assistant General Superintendent of Police, Inspectors, Captains, Lieu- tenants, Sergeants, Patrolmen, Patrol Drivers, Superintendent of Horses, Su- perintendent of Construction, Superin- tendent Bureau of Identification, As- sistant Superintendent Bureau of Iden- tification, Secretary of the Police De- partment, Private Secretary to the Gen- eral Superintendent of Police, Police Custodian Stolen Property, Chief Clerk Secretary's office, Clerk in Secretary's office, Chief Clerk in Detective Bu- reau, Chief Operator, Assistant Chief Operator, Operators, Drillmaster, Chief Matron, Matrons, Feed Inspector, De- partment Printer, Vehicle Inspectors, Photographer, Assistant Photographer, Stenographers, Supply Drivers, Finger Print Expert and such other mem- bers as may hereafter be provided for by ordinance. BY MR. BENNETT: Resolved, that the present laws re- lating to firemen’s pensions be retained and included in the charter. BY MESSRS WERNO AND ROSEN- THAL: Chapter 7, section 1, alternative 1. In addition to all the legislative powers now conferred upon it by the general cities and villages act and the amendments thereof, the charter shall vest in the city council the power to regulate the legal observance of the weekly day of rest, commonly called Sunday; and the sale of liquors by bona fide athletic, charitable, edu- cational, fraternal, musical and social associations, corporations and societies at social gatherings, or entertainments conducted or held by them only; and in general all powers of local legisla- tion which may under the constitution be vested in a municipality. BY MR. BROWN: Permission shall not be given to any person to retail any goods, fruit or vegetables from a wagon or other vehicle. BY MR. SNOW: Amend proposition 1, Section 16, Pub- lic Utilities, by striking out all after the word “city” in line 11, and insert- ing in lieu thereof the following: “also to docks and wharves.” BY MR. TAYLOR: A permanent educational commission of advisory capacity shall be appointed by the mayor with the approval of the council, to consist of seventeen mem- bers, who shall serve without compensa- tion, including the superintendent of December 22 703 1906 the public schools and the librarian of the public library, who shall be mem- bers ex officio. Each other member shall hold office until another person is ap- pointed to succeed him. It shall be the function of the educa- tional commission to tender advice and recommendations regarding the public school system of the city to correlate the educational forces of the city and to prevent unnecessary duplication of ac- tivities by exercising their influence to- word co-ordinating the various educa- tional and scientific institutions of the city. BY ME. LATHROP: Amend Section 1, of XYI, by adding the following words: Provided, However, that the city shall not have power to operate such public utility works by virtue of any- thing in this section contained. BY ME. SHEDD: Eesolved, That in cases where a po- lice officer, in the actual discharge of his duty, is charged with an offense, such as murder, manslaughter, or other serious charge, or charges, that the Common Council shall appropriate a sufficient fund for attorney’s fees to the end that such officer shall be prop- erly represented in court, and the truth of said allegations brought out. BY ME. VOPICKA: EESOLVED: That the City of Chi- cago be given power in condemnation proceedings to make the assessments for benefits payable in such number of annual installments as the City Coun- cil shall by ordinance determine, not to exceed twenty in number, and to issue bonds for the anticipation of such assessments payable out of the pro- ceeds of the collection thereof, and to sell such bonds at not less than par, for the creation of a special fund to be used in the payment of the awards for property taken or damaged through such condemnation proceedings. BY ME. VOPICKA: Eesolved: That the City of Chicago shall have power to appropriate and set aside out of the moneys received through general taxation or from mis- cellaneous sources, as a special fund to be used only for the repair or re- pavement of such streets as have been paved by special assessment since July 1, 1901, and such streets as shall here- after be so paved. BY ME. VOPICKA: Eesolved: That the City of Chicago shall have power to create a special fund to be used for the purpose of guaranteeing the prompt payment at maturity of all special assessment bonds of the City of Chicago issued since January 1, 1903. BY ME. VOPICKA: Eesolved: That the City of Chicago shall have power to levy assessments for improvements according to the pres- ent Special Assessment law with the lollowing amendment: In cases where the amount of an assessment for widening of opening of a street or streets exceeds the sum of $500,000, then the assessment is to be divided in the following manner: 10 per cent, of the amount to be levied on the property facing the streets where the improvement is made and 90 per cent, of the assessment to be levied pro rata on all the real estate property in Chicago. Report of Committee on Rules, Pro- cedure and General Plan — B. A. Eck- hart, Chairman. CHICAGO CHARTER CONVENTION, Gentlemen: Your committee on ,December 22 704 1906 Rules, Procedure and General Plan, to t jvhom were referred the following res- olutions which were introduced for consideration at the meeting of Decem- ber 14th, 1906, XIII. PROPERTY. 2. The city may so acquire property outside of as well as within the city limits for any municipal purpose. Also an amendment offered by Mr. Shanahan: * * * that the city may acquire property by purchase outside as well as within the city limits for any mu- nicipal purpose, and not have the right to condemn outside property. Also an amendment offered by Mr. Brown: The city may acquire property out- side of the city, or purchase and con- demn property for municipal purposes within the city. Also an amendment offered by Mr. B. A. Eckhart: The city may acquire property out- side as well as within the city limits, either by purchase or condemnation, for park and boulevard purposes. would respectfully report that the com- mittee has considered the subject-mat- ter, and recommends the adoption of the following: The city may acquire by purchase outside as well as within the city limits for any municipal purpose, and may acquire property outside of the city limits by purchase or condemnation for park, boulevard or forest preserve pur- poses. Respectfully submitted, B. A. ECKHART, Chairman. BY MR. PENDARYIS: Resolved, That the charter shall con- tain a provision preserving the integ- rity of prohibition districts established by ordinance of the city, and providing that the City Council shall have no j power to modify or abolish any such prohibition district until the proposi- tion to so modify or abolish any such district shall, upon a petition of not less than 20 per cent, of the legal voters^ then residing within any such district, be submitted to and be ap- proved by a majority of all the legal voters residing within such prohibition district. BY MR. SHEDD: Resolved, That the charter shall con- tain a provision that no employe of the city shall become or continue to remain a member of any society or organiza- tion, obedience or allegiance to whose rules, principles or practices shall re- quire or impose any express or implied obligation upon such employe to refrain from the full discharge of his duties or to do any act against the government of the city, or in violation of any ordi- nance or law, or of any rule or regula- tion of any department of the city, or of any order of any official of the city or of any of its departments. For any violation of this provision an employe shall be at once discharged from the city service by the head of the de- partment in which he is employed.' BY MR. WILKINS: Upon the adoption of this charter, the Board of Education shall prepare or cause to be prepared, a code of morals, non-sectarian in character and tenor, and put the same into book form, to be used as one of the text books of the public schools and taught in all the branches of the same. BY MR. WILKINS: During the life of this charter and while it operates as the Constitution of the Municipality of Chicago, the children in the public schools shall not be segregated or separated in the rooms and classes on account of their nation- ality, race or color. December 22 705 1906 BY MB. EIDMANN: Kesolved, That no appointment by the mayor shall be made unless concurred in by the City Council at a subsequent meeting. BY MR. WERNO: Reconsider the vote by which para- graph 3, Section II, on page 593, pro- viding that “members of the Board of Education shall serve without compen- sation” was passed for the purpose of submitting the following as a substi- tute for said paragraph: Paragraph 3. Section II. The members of the Board of Educa- tion shall be paid such compensation as the City Council may by ordinance provide. REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURE AND GENERAL PLAN— -B. A. Eckhart, Chair- man. Chicago Charter Convention: Gentlemen: — Your Committee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan to whom were referred the following res- olutions and amendments: XVIII. EDUCATION. I. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCA- TION. The City of Chicago shall constitute one school district. The public school system of the city shall be under the management and control of a depart- ment of education at the head of which there shall be a Board of Education, and no power by this charter vested in the Board of Education or in any officer of the department shall be exercised by the City Council except as by this char- ter otherwise provided. II. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION. The management of the public school system of the city shall be vested in a board of education of fifteen members to be appointed by the mayor, with the approval of a majority of the City Council. All nominations of members of Board of Education by the mayor shall lie over at least one week before action for confirmation or rejection thereon by the City Council. would respectfully report that the com- mittee has considered the subject mat- ter, and recommends the adoption of the following: The charter shall re-enact in sub- stance the provisions of the existing law regarding the acquisition, tenure and disposition of property used, in- tended, acquired, held or sought to be disposed of, for school purposes or the use of schools, but no real estate shall be leased by said board, either as lessor or lessee, for a term longer than five years without the concurrence of the City Council, nor shall the provisions of any lease, now or hereafter made, whose unexpired term may exceed five years, be altered without such concur- rence. Respectfully submitted, B. A. ECKHART, Chairman. BY MR. BENNETT: Resolved, That the present pension laws relating to policemen be retained and included in the charter. BY MR. J. W. ECKHART: Resolved, That it is the sense of this Convention that the present pension law providing for a pension system of em- ployes of the Chicago Public Library be included in the proposed charter for the City of Chicago. The following resolution has been re- ferred to the LAW COMMITTEE with instructions to draft a provision em- bodying the sense of the resolution: BY MR. PATTERSON: The charter shall contain a provision extending the jurisdiction of tho City of Chicago over those submerged lands up to the line of navigation which arc not now under jurisdiction of the park boards. December 22 706 1906 SPECIAL ORDERS SECTION XVII. — Education (Wednesday, December 26, at 7:30 o’clock p. m.). PARAGRAPH 3. — Suffrage, at page 52. (To be taken up immediately after the disposition of the subject of Education.) CORRECTIONS. MR. SHANAHAN: Page 618, first column, sixth and seventh lines: Btrike out u to a majority of the council.” Also at page 631, first column, strike out “as,” in the fourth line of re- marks, and insert “and” for “that” in the fifth line of remarks. MR. SUNNY: At page 481 substi- tute the following for remarks as printed: “I think that Mr. Smulski’s propo- sition is theoretically right, but it is impracticable from a financial stand- point, at least within the next five years. I think this is a matter which ought to be left entirely with the City Council. I doubt if there are five men — I am sure not ten men in this room — who are familiar with the problem or who appreciate what the repaving of Chicago streets would cost. I can imag- ine that it might cost enough in the next five years to bankrupt us. I re- gard Professor Merriam’s proposition as entirely safe, inasmuch that it leaves the City Council the right to assess property for repaving at not to exceed 50 per cent. If the City Council shall find in the operation of this provision that the city can afford to stand 60 or 70 per cent, of the cost of repaving, the cost of repaving to the property owners could be cut down accordingly. Perhaps in the operation of this pro- vision over a series of years, the cost of repaving could be cut down even to the extent of the city standing the entire charge and relieving the taxpayers alto- gether. “For these reasons I am in favor of Professor Merriam’s proposition, and I hope that it will carry.” December 22 707 1906 RESOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO AMENDMENT OF STATE CONSTITUTION Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Illinois, the Senate concurring there: in That there shall be submitted to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection at the next election of members of the General Assem- bly, a proposition to amend the Constitution of this State as follows: Resolved, That Article IV of the Constitution of this State be amended by ading thereto a section to be numbered and known as Section 34, and reading as follows, to-wit: Section 34. The General Assembly shall have power, subject to the condi- tions and limitations hereinafter contained to pass any law (local, special or general) providing a scheme or charter of local municipal government for th© territory now or hereafter embraced within the limits of the City of Chicago. The law or laws so passed may provide for consolidating (in whole or in part) m the municipal government of the City of Chicago, the powers now vested in the city, board of education, township, park and other local governments and authorities having jurisdiction confined to or within said territory, or any part thereof, and for the assumption by the City of Chicago of the debts and liabilities (in whole or in part) of the governments or corporate authorities whose functions within its territory shall be vested in said City of Chicago and may/ authorize said city in the event of its becoming liable for the indebtedness of two or more of the existing municipal corporations lying wholly within said City of Chicago, to become indebted to an amount (including its existing indebtedness and the indebtedness of all municipal corporations lying wholly within the limits of said city, and said city’s proportionate share of the indebtedness of said county and sanitary district which share shall be determined in such manner as the General Assembly shall prescribe) in its aggregate not exceeding five per centum of the full value of the taxable property within its limits as ascertained by the last assessment either for State or municipal purposes previous to the incurring of such indebtedness (but no new bonded indebtedness, other than for refunding purposes, shall be .incurred until the proposition therefor shall be consented to by a majority of the legal voters of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special) ; and may provide for the assessment of property and the levy and collection of taxes within said city for corporate purposes in accordance with the principles of equality and uniformity prescribed by this Constitution; and may abolish all offices, the functions of which shall be o'herwise provided for; and may provide for the annexation of territory to or disconnection of territory from said City of Chicago by the consent of a majority of the legal voters (voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special) of the said city and of a majority of the voters of such territory, voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special, ar?d in case the General Assembly shall create municipal courts in the City of Chicago it may abolish the offices of Justices of the Peace, Police Magistrates and Constables in and for the territory within said city and may limit the jursidiction of Justices of the Peace in the territory of said County of Cook outside of said city to that territory, and in such case the jurisdiction and practice of said municipal courts shall be such as the General Assembly shall prescribe; and the December 22 708 1906 General Assembly may pass all laws which it may deem requisite to effectually provide a complete system of local municipal government in and for the City of Chicago. No law based upon this amendment to the Constitution, affecting the municipal government of the City of Chicago, shall take effect until such law shall be con- sented to by a majority of the legal voters of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special; and no local or special law based upon this amendment affecting specially any part of the City of Chicago shall take effect until consented to by a majority of the legal voters of such part of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special. Nothing in this section contained shall be construed to repeal, amend or affect Section Four (4) of Article XI of the Constitution of this State. Adopted by the House, April 22, 1903. Concurred in by the Senate, April 22, 1903. PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 26, 1906 (Eljtraiui (Eljartrr (Cmuirutinn Convened, December 12, 1900 Headquarter* 171 WASHINGTON STREET telephone main 4877 Milton J. foreman Chairman Alexander h. Revell, . Vice-Chairman M. L. McKinley Secretary Henry Barrett Chamberlin. Asbt. Sec y December 26 711 1906 PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Regular Meeting, Wednesday, December 26, 1906 7:30 O’clock P. M., in the City Council Chamber OFFICIAL RECORD Published by authority of the Chicago Charter Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: The Convention will be in order, and the Secretary will call the roll. Present — Foreman, Chairman, and Baker, Beebe, Beilfuss, Bennett, Bros- seau, Brown, Clettenberg, Crilly, Dever, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Erickson, Guerin, Hill, Hunter, Kittleman, Linehan, MacMil lan, McCormick, McKinley, O’Donnell, Owens, Pendarvis, Post, Raymer, Re- vell, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Shepard, Sun- ny, Taylor, Vopicka, Walker, Werno, White, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 41 . Absent - Badenoch, Burke, Carey, Church, Cole, Ritter, Dixorf, T. .7., Fish- er, Fitzpatrick, Oansbergen, Graham, Haas, Harrison, Hoyne, Jones, Lath rop, Lundberg, McGoorty Merriam, Oeline, Paullin, Patterson, Powers, Rainey, Rinaker, Robins, Sethness, Shedd, Smulski, Snow, Swift, Thomp- son, Wilson — 33. THE CHAIRMAN: No quorum pres- ent. Does the Convention want to take up the discussion of this matter? There need be no vote taken until a quorum arrives; there will be two or three here immediately. Suppose the Secretary reads where we stopped work on Satur- day last. MR. POST: Mr. Chairman, before taking that up T would like the privi lege of a word in explanation of some- thing in the record. In the latter part of the last 'session I indulged in a lit- tle horseplay with reference to Mr. Shepard, and I made two or three re- marks that were entirely good-natured, and I am sure he understood them that way. I find that one of them reached the stenographer’s ears, though none of them were intended for his ears, and this one standing alone on page (>8 not make any provision for it now, the board could indulge in extravagance if they wished to, if that were not provided for. I, myself, am of the opinion that a trained architect and a trained engi- neer would come as little under the op- eration of the civil service law as a law- yer would. I do not see any more reason for excepting an attorney than for ex- cepting a professional man such as an architect or an engineer. But this Con- vention has decided otherwise. But in any view of it, I believe their appoint- ment should be provided for. THE CHAIRMAN: In other words, your position is that the board should be required to appoint them. MR. ROSENTHAL: Yes, sir. MR. HUNTER: I think that is the proper method. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemfen, you have heard the proposition of Mr. Rosen- thal. Let the Secretary read it again. THE SECRETARY: “By Mr. Ros- enthal : Among the employes of the Board of Education shall be a trained architect and a trained engineer. 7 7 December 26 722 1906 THE CHAIRMAN : Are you ready for the question? MR. WHITE: I am not at all cer- tain but what I am out of order at this point, but I shall move later in this Con- vention, and I trust the members will think carefully about it, that the archi- tect of the board and the engineer of the board be not under civil service. THE CHAIRMAN: That will require a reconsideration at some other time. MR. WHITE: I know it; but I shall make such a motion later in the Con- vention. THE CHAIRMAN : At present it is not in order. Are you ready for the question upon Mr. Rosenthal ’s motion? (Cries of “Question,” “Question.”) THE CHAIRMAN: As many as fa- vor the motion will signify by saying aye ; those opposed, no. It is carried. The Secretary will read No. 10. The Secretary thereupon read No. 10 as printed on page 700 of the proceed- ings. MR. RAYMER: I move its adoption. MR. POST: I rise to a point of in- formation. Before you consider that, I would like to make this point: Mr. White has given notice of his purpose to move to reconsider. Now, we are held pretty closely to attendance here and I do not w r ant to be surprised by a motion to re- consider at some future time. Mr. White voted on the wrong side of the motion to entitle him to move to reconsider. THE CHAIRMAN: He has not made the motion yet. MR. POST: What is that? THE CHAIRMAN: He has not made the motion yet. MR. POST: He gave notice, and I ■wish to give notice, too. THE CHAIRMAN: When he makes the motion though there will be an in- quiry. MR. POST : I wish to offer an amend- ment to No. 1, or an addition as follows, to No. 1 of 10. THE CHAIRMAN: Is it an amend- ment, Mr. Post? MR. POST: It is an amendment, an addition by way of amendment. THE CHAIRMAN : Let it be read. THE SECRETARY: “By Mr. Post: At paragraph 1, Section 10, page 700: The salary of no teacher or principal shall be lowered during the term of his or her appointment. * ’ THE CHAIRMAN: The first ques- tion will be upon the resolution, as printed. MR. SHEPARD: I second that mo- tion. THE CHAIRMAN: That is offered as an addition to the resolution? MR. POST: Yes, sir. MR. MacMILLAN: I would like to ask an explanation from the committee of the reason why the words, in para- graph 1, section 10, are inserted, which words are as follows: “But the board need not retain in service more princi- pals or teachers than the needs of the schools require. ’ ’ I want to know what the object of retaining that in the charter is. I see no reason for its re- tention whatever. It is a matter of detail at the very best, which does not need any place in a document of this kind, and I see no reason on earth why such a paragraph should be retained in a section of this character. THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Taylor is the one to answer that. MR. MacMILLAN : I just desire to make another suggestion, and perhaps they will come in together THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Taylor has the floor to answer Mr. MacMillan ’s question. MR. MacMILLAN : * 1 Appointments, promotions and transfers of teachers shall be made for merit only. * 1 Sup- pose a teacher is transferred from one school to another in the same grade, how can that be a transfer for merit only? Is not the phrase ‘ 1 transferred for mer- it only” slightly misleading? If it December 26 723 1906 be a promotion it will be a promotion, if tbe teacher is transferred from one school and put in another and higher grade, in another school; but no pro- motion would cover that. Is not that word ‘ 1 transfer, ’ ’ Dr. Taylor, a little superfluous? MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, the first clause was inserted here simply as a precautionary measure, and the point is well taken by Mr. MacMillan. The other clause he refers to in his second question does not allude to trans- fers. It has crept in by the effort to convince, that is all. ‘ 1 Appointments and promotions shall be made for merit only. ” Of course, that refers, not to transfers, and the point is well taken. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a mo- tion to strike out the word 1 ‘ transfer? ’ ’ MR. MacMILLAN : I would so move, Mr. Chairman, if it be proper at this time. THE CHAIRMAN: Air. MacMillan moves to strike out the word ‘ 1 trans- fers, ’ ’ so that the sentence will read 1 1 Appointments, promotions shall be made on merit. ’ 1 As many as favor that motion signify by saying aye. Those opposed, no. The word will be stricken out. The next question that MacMillan inquires about is the last sentence, “But the board need not retain in service more principals or teachers than the needs of the schools require. ’ ’ MR. WHITE: I don’t know whether that question was answered, but the sit- uation is this: You appoint your teach- ers here permanently, that is, during good behavior, subject to removal for cause only. Suppose that at any time by vir- tue of the consolidation, or for any reason whatsover, you could get along with 100 less teachers than you had, for instance, a year ago, if you did not have some such clause as this it would seem to me that your unnecessary teachers might turn around and insist under the law on being paid their salaries, at any rate, if they stood ready and willing to work; and I am sure that clause ought to be put in, because such matters have arisen, such a case has arisen in the Board of Education within my memory. MR. BENNETT: In connection with that paragraph it seems to me that an addition might properly be made to it to the effect that the Board of Edu- cation should be the sole judge of the necessity. Now, I understand that the teachers are not under civil service, but w T e had better look into this matter, be- cause instances have arisen where under the civil service law where employes have been discharged and gone into court to show that they were willing to work and that there was work for them to do. Now, in my opinion, it ought to be made clear if this is going into the charter, that the Board of Education ought to have the power to determine whether the service was any longer need- ed; I believe that should not be left in the dark. THE CHAIRMAN: There is no mo- tion before the house on either of those propositions. MR. BENNETT : Very well. MR. MacMILLAN : I move to in- sert the following: “But the board need not retain in service more princi- pals or teachers than in its judgment the needs of the schools require, ’ ’ in- serting the words 1 ‘ in its judgment ’ ’ be- tween the words 1 1 than ’ 1 and 1 1 the ’ ’ in the last line of the printed paragraph. I believe that meets Alderman Bennett ’s suggestion. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard Mr. MacMillan’s amendment. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor of it will signify by saying aye; opposed, no. The ayes have it and it is carried. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer in suggestion, to add in No. 1 under Section 10, after the word “merit” the following : ‘ ‘ such merit to be test- ed by scholarship and length and char- December 26 724 1906 acter of service.” That is merely ex- planatory of what I suppose almost all of us mean by the word 1 1 merit, ’ ’ and yet I am not certain but what the word I I merit ’ ’ is elastic enough so that un- der certain circumstances it might be so broadly interpreted as to mean almost anything. THE CHAIRMAN: Will the Secre- tary read Dr. White’s amendment? MR. POST: When you have “schol- arship” inserted, it is about as indefin- ite a term as 1 1 merit, ’ ’ and in a charter it seems to me the broader term of merit is better in order to leave it to the board as to what shall constitute merit. If you put in scholarship, what does it mean. We have had evidence in our investigations in the board that schol- arship consists in getting 87.7 or 87.9 in marks by somebody. A scholarship consists in getting favorable marks by boards in secret rooms passing upon teachers ’ examinations. It does not seem to me that that justifies scholarship at all, and yet it is better to leave it to the board to determine whether it shall be scholarship or something else, and then the board can be held responsible, and not attempt to codify this charter any further than we are attempting to codify it. We are coming down pretty close to brass tacks now, it seems to me. It seems to me that we might take chances on the meaning of merit without getting it into the charter. MR. J. W. ECKHART: Mr. Chair- man, it seems to me that we should not try to define the word ‘ ‘ merit ’ ’ here, and I think it could be w r ell left to the Board of Education after awhile to de- fine the word “merit.” I think the word merit is plain and ought to be definite enough. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read Dr. White’s amendment. The Secretary read the amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? As many as favor the amendment signify by saying aye ; op- posed, no. The motion is lost. The question is now upon the first para- graph of Section 10, as amended by Mr. MacMillan. Are you ready for the question ? MR. POST : Mr. Chairman, I offered an addition by way of amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: I thought yours was a separate propostion, Mr. Post. MR. POST : No, it is an addition to that paragraph. The object of it is to prevent a reduction of the pay of the teachers during their term of appoint- ment, and it is based upon the same theory that the like provision is based upon under which we have decided not to allow any reduction in the salary of the superintendent during the term of his appointment, or of the business man- ager during the term of his appoint- ment. It seems to me that the right to alter salaries during term of officb should be substantially the same with regard to the teaching force as with regard to the superintendent and business manager. So far as the good of the system is con- cerned, it is of much more importance to avoid producing discontent among the teaching force who come directly in con- tact with the children, than it is to produce discontent among the gentlemen who command salaries of $7,000, $8,000, $9,000, or $10,000. Of course so far as the positions themselves are concern- ed it is doubtless just as objectionable to the superintendent to have his salary reduced during his term of office as it would be to the teacher, but so far as the effect upon the pupils is concerned the reduction of salaries during terms of office is calculated to be far more prejudicial to the children who go to public schools if the reduction relates to the teachers than if it relates to those highly paid gentlemen at the top of the system. THE CHAIRMAN: Will the Secre- tary read the proposition? December 26 725 1906 The Secretary read Mr. Post ’s amend- ment, as heretofore printed. MR. SHANAHAN: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a question of information: I would like to ask Mr. Post what is the term of appointment ? ME. POST: I have followed the lan- guage that you have already adopted in the paragraph relating to the superin- tendent and business manager. ME. SHANAHAN: We haven’t adopted it. That would become perma- nent after three years? ME. POST : Yes, it would become permanent unless because there is no necessity for as many teachers, then they may be reduced. That is to say, the teachers that remain in the city. ME. SHANHAN : Under your amend- ment they could not be raised or lowered during the term. VOICES: They could be lowered. MB. WHITE: I am so much in sym- pathy with Mr. Post’s suggestion that I reluctantly ask the Convention to con- sider this proposition. These teachers are elected for life, which means that having established their salary at any given time you could not reduce them under any circumstances. Now, suppose for any reason, suppose because of a slump in the value of property or a change in the tax rate the board should find itself up against a possible deficit, and I know it is a horrid mean thing to turn around and take that out of the pockets of the teachers, I am not in sympathy with it, but I can see where you might strike a situation where you could not do anything else unless Mr. Post or some one else will show us how we could meet an emergency of that kind, if they can do that I am entirely in sympathy with the idea, but under the circumstances as at present I should be compelled to vote against it. ME. B. A. ECKHART: Mr. Chair- man, 1 am also in sympathy with the theory of fixing the salaries permanent- ly, if it can be done, but you are now preparing an organic law for the City of Chicago. You are embodying pro- visions, if Mr. Post ’s amendment pre- vails, that would prevent you from ever making any change at any time without going to the legislature. Suppose that a calamity should befall us some time in the future as it has in the past, when the City of Chicago should burn down, or some other calamity should befall the City of Chicago, and a deficit would take place in your revenues, what would you do? Close up your schools, or would you call upon the teachers to accept a hori- zontal cut? It seems to me that good business sense would dictate that we should leave that matter for the future to determine. The future can take care of it and I hope that will not prevail. ME. LINEHAN : It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that sound business sense would impel us to state the same thing in regard to the first paragraph of Sec- tion 7 in regard to the salaries of the officers, which was passed at the last meeting, and which says that the salary of no officer shall be lowered during the his term of office. Now, we are willing to do that, but when it comes down to the question of teachers we are willing that they shall be lowered or raised to meet these possible conditions. I think what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and that the same action should apply with regard to the officers as with regard to the teachers. ME. B. A. ECKHABT: But there is a difference between them in this, that the officers are appointed for a term of years, and this means the appointment of the teachers for life. ME. YOUNG: I think the gentlemen do not give enough attention to the fact that these teachers are appointed for life i after a three year probationary term. You are not appointing the superintend- ent for life, nor the other officers in the j school system. They are appointed for i limited terms. It is a very different i proposition when you provide that this December 26 726 1906 salary is to apply to a life tenure of office. You provide no means of dis- charging those teachers except upon writ- ten charges preferred against them, and there is no means, as pointed out by Mr. Eckhart and Mr. White, in the event of some calamity, to make any reduction in your school expenses. It would seem to me almost suicidal for us to place such a clause as this in the charter, and I believe that the speakers on the other side of this question have continued to point to the board as being entitled to be trusted with these matters, and it would seem to me perfectly safe to trust such a propostion in the hands of the school board as they may be called upon to face under the necessities as they arise. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? MR. POST : One moment, Mr. Chair- man. One or two questions have been asked me, and I do not wish to be understood as not being willing to re- ply* Now, I wish it to be understood, Mr. President, that I am not putting in this amendment because I believe in doing this particular thing. I am putting it in because you have put it in — I do not mean you, Mr. President; I mean the Charter Convention have put it in, in regard to the other officers. And just as Mr. Linehan says, I believe if it is proper in regard to the other offi- cers it is proper in the case of the teach- ers ; and if it not proper in the case of the teachers then it is not proper in regard to the other officers. 1 voted against the proposition when it came up in regard to the salaries of the other officers. We are told it is different be- cause these teachers are appointed for life. Gentlemen who have had any ex- perience in affairs know very well that when they have got a position, that if the board in its judgment finds that it has gotten in its service more teachers than the schools require that it is not their experience that the teachers hold their tenure of office for life. That need not be dwelt upon. We all know there have been ways and there will be ways of seeing that the teachers do not hold their positions for life. But if this goes into effect in regard to the other officers, then you should have it in regard to the teaching force. You are injuring your teaching force and you will rffect its power if you do not secure its tenure of office, at any rate, so long as you do that with the superintendent and busi- ness manager. MR. REYELL: Mr. Chairman, I voted against this proposition in con- nection with the superintendent, because I believed that the entire system should stand or fall together in a case of emer- gency. I shall have to vote against Mr. Post’s provision, for it is certainly, it seems to me, inconsistent — that is,, my action seems inconsistent, otherwise. I think that if we vote in favor of this we are putting up too great chances against the possible financial position of the City of Chicago, at some time in the future; and we should not do that in connection with a charter proposition. I believe that some of the gentlemen who voted in favor of the proposition regard- ing the superintendent, would do well to move reconsideration, in order that we may put this entire question into our system upon the same basis. There is nothing that will go more against the grain than discrimination cf this character. MR. RAYMER: I do not hardly think that these two situations are ex- actly alike. I was opposed to putting in a provision that would reduce the salary of the superintendent for the rea- son that I believed we should fix it so that the superintendent the Board of Education might select should feel ab- solutely secure of his remuneration for a fixed period ; believing that by so doing we would be able to get the best possible talent for that position. That is the question, as it seems to me. We have December 26 727 1906 fixed the period of service for the super- intendent at four years, ami we are fix- ing here a position that is permanent; in other words, a life position. I think that the question shouM be left entirely with the Board of Education to meet in case of such an emergency arising where it might be necessary to reduce the average salaries. THE CHAIRMAN : The question is upon Mr. Post ’s amendment, and upon this amendment the Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Beebe, Dever, Linehan, Mac- Millan, O’Donnell, Owens, Post, Vopicka, Zimmer — 9. Nays — Baker, Beilfuss, Bennett, Bros- seau, Brown, Clettenberg, Crilly, Dix- on. G. W. ; Eckhart, B. A.; Eckhart, J. W. ; Eidmann, Erickson, Hill, Hunter, Kittleman, McCormick, McKinley, Pen- darvis, Raymer, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Shepard, Sunny, Taylor, Walker, Wer- no, White, Wilkins, Young — 29. (During roll call.) MR. POST: Mr. Chairman, as I stand exactly where Mr. Revell does on that subject I wish to explain my vote on this question, that I am voting aye to. this motion because the Convention has already applied this principle to the superintendent, for that reason, and for that reason alone, I vote aye. MR. REVELL: I wish you to pass me on this subject. MR. BEEBE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to change my vote from no to aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Beebe changes his vote from no to aye. MR. VOPICKA: I vote aye, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Vopicka votes aye. THE SECRETARY: Beebe, aye; Vopicka, aye. THE CHAIRMAN: On Mr. Post’s motion the yeas are 9, and the noes are 29, and the motion is lost. THE CHAIRMAN: The question re- curs upon the adoption of Section 10 as ! amended by Mr. MacMillan. As many as favor its adoption signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. It is carried. The Secretary will read No. 2. (No. 2 was read.) THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will now read Mr. Hill ’s amendment. THE SECRETARY : By Mr. Hill : The standing of teachers for appoint- ment and promotion shall be entrusted to a board made up of the superintend- ent of education and of an assistant or district superintendent selected by the superintendent and three other members, who shall be educators and who shall be appointed by the Board of Education. MR. HILL: I move its adoption. MR. TAYLOR: I second. THE CHAIRMAN: What is your motion, Dr. Taylor? MR. TAYLOR : I second the amend- ment. MR. SHANAHAN : May we have that amendment read over again, Mr. Secre- tary? THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary read the amendment of Mr. Hill again. (Mr. Hill’s amendment was re-read.) MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman, I may explain my amendment. It seems to me that it should be a board of at least five members, and they should be as equally divided as possible. I do not think it wise to place it wholly in the hands of the superintendent; or wise, perhaps, to place it wholly in the hands of the Board of Education. By divid- ing it in this manner you make the board of five, and the Board of Education has the appointment of three men who shall be — three members who shall be educators, and the superintendent and one appointed by him to form two mem- bers of that board. 1 think it is as fair a .proposition as we can have. MR. HUNTER: In listening to that amendment I presumed that the Board of Education were to appoint these December 26 728 1906 three educators from their own num- ber. MR. HILL: Not necessarily, Mr. Hunter. I do not anticipate that. They should use their own judgment about that. They can choose educators of standing outside their own body, if they prefer ; or they can choose gentlemen from their own number, if they so pre- fer. The idea is to get an efficient board to examine the teacher ’s standing not limited necessarily to their own num- bers. They will be educators. MR. BENNETT: For a point of in- formation. This is not the exact lan- guage to be used in drafting the bill? MR. HILL: No, sir. This not to be the exact language. If it was left in this shape it would be uncertain what it meant by the words ‘ 1 standing of the teachers, ’ ’ that should be amplified and defined as to what is meant by the words : 1 1 standing of the teacher. ’ ’ MR. HILL: If I may be permitted to explain THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hill. MR. HILL: This is the language of the draft as drawn. I followed the lan- guage exactly, as drawn. If I under- stand it, the standing of the teachers probably applies to their different ap- pointments, or, perhaps, their salary; their appointment and their promotion; advance, from one step to another. I followed the language of the original draft, supposing it had a definite mean- ing in the board and in educational par- lance. MR, ROSENTHAL: I am heartily in favor of Mr. Hill ’s amendment, but I think we ought to have one thing fur- ther in it. I think none of those per- sons, none of those three members ap- pointed should be members of the Board of Education ; and that it should not be necessary that they should be in any active employment at the time as teach- ers, or pedagogues, or anything of that sort. Therefore, in drafting this pro- vision in place of the two shall be edu- cators, who shall not be members of the Board of Education, but who shall have experience as educators, should be added. THE CHAIRMAN: Is that your amendment? MR. ROSENTHAL : Yes. MR. HILL: I will accept the amend- ment, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read Mr. Hill ’s resolution as amend- ed. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Hill, as amended by Mr. Rosenthal : ‘ ‘ The standing of teachers for appointment and promotion shall be entrusted to a board made up of the superintendent of edu- cation and of an assistant or district superintendent selected by the superin- tendent, and three other members who shall not be members of the Board of Education but who shall have experience as educators and shall be appointed by the Board of Education. ’ 1 MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire how many assistant superintendents are to be appointed. In other words, the number of the board; I don’t find it. MR. HILL: Five. MR. SHEPARD: One superintendent and five assistants? A VOICE: One assistant, the super- intendent and three educators. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against the amendment of- fered by Mr. Rosenthal. There is not any reason to anticipate why we should not have members of the Board of Edu- cation who are as fully competent, or possibly more competent than anyone else, aside from the superintendent of schools himself to sit upon this board to determine the standing of the va- rious teachers. We have had men and have men on the Board of Education who have taken and who take a great interest in the school question. They have had years of experience to support them. We may have upon the Board of Education in the future splendid December 26 729 1906 educators in this community, and there is no reason in my judgment why the Board of Education should be forbid- den to appoint one or more of those three members to this board that you are now creating from its own membership. I believe that we can safely leave that with the board, as originally contem- plated by Mr. Hill’s amendment; more safely than we can by shutting them out from membership in this board by a charter provision. MR. POST: I wish to offer a sub- stitute. I suppose liberality as to the number of substitutes still prevails? THE CHAIRMAN: It is the Christ- mas season, Mr. Post. MR. POST: Well, I will be as lib- eral as the President; I will furnish the substitutes and the President will ad- mit them. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary read Mr. Post’s substitute for the entire matter. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Post: “ Appointments, promotions and trans- fers of teachers, principals, assistant and district superintendents and other educational and attendance officers, and text books and specifications for educa- tional apparatus shall be introduced by the Board of Education by a majority vote of all of its members; provided, that said text books and apparatus when once adopted shall not be changed within four years thereafter.” MR. POST: Mr. President, if you are going to adopt Mr. Hill’s motion, I would suggest it would be wise to adopt Mr. Rosenthal ’s amendment, in view of the functions of the board as so far es- tablished; because unless you do allow the members of the school board to be appointed on this examining commit- tee, I doubt if the members of the school board hereafter will have enough work to do to earn even the meager salary you are allowing them. Tt ought to be proper, therefore, to appoint them on the examining committee, and as- sign them such other collateral duties which may occur. MR. MacMILLAN: May I ask a question? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MR. MacMILLAN: What is the salary of the members of the school board? MR. POST: The present board gets nothing. As to the old board there is nobody discloses how much they got, and there has been some question as to the future board. (Laughter.) Now, Mr. President, I wish to call attention to one particular omission which may be easily cured in Mr. Hill’s motion. THE CHAIRMAN: Attention, gen- tlemen. MR. POST: Mr. Hill’s intention is to have this examining board appointed once and for all, but there is no term of office indicated. I would also call your attention to another thing. Your superintendent is to be in for four years, practically; he cannot be got out. He cannot be gotten out if he can come to a good understanding with a third — with one more than a third of the board, which is sometimes feasible. He is there for four years. If the majori- ty of the board and he do not agree and yet he can stand in, there is likely to be a pulling and a hauling in regard to this committee. It is possible. I say, possible, of course, I would not predict positively. That is something that should be taken into consideration, as it seems to me. Another thing: While you are adding this, why not specify what this examining committee is to do. Why do you tell the board what kind of an examining committee it must have and then save the board the trouble of figuring out what the ex- amining committee is to do? Why don’t you specify its functions? Why not go into details? If you are going into details, why not go far enough into details to let us know what this board December 26 730 1906 is to do; what kind of an examination to give, and what circumstances it has to submit to; whether it is to indicate its judgments by marks, and, if so, whether it is to be allowed to use frac- tions in the marks, and so> on and so forth? Now, Mr. President, why not make a provision here that will leave rea- sonable freedom to this board? You talk about the dignity of the superin- tendent; and you give him dignity by giving him a big salary, and making it perpetual to the term of office. Why not give a little dignity to the Board of Education? Why not assume you are going to have a Board of Education that is to be regarded as a dignified body, and that it is to be entitled to be entrusted with the duties of directing the school system? Why don’t you as- sume that that board will consult its superintendents in technical matters, as any reasonable men would natural- ly do, instead of legislating it into a consultative state of mind? Why not make a board, Mr. President, instead of making a stack for a favorite superin- tendent? I presume, Mr. President, we ought to try to legislate this matter re- gardless of private members and re- gardless of personalities, and with a view to the future organization of this school system. This kind of legislation is not doing that. It is tying the whole system up by saying whether the handling be done according to the ideals that prevail among the majority of this Convention, which is not a representative Conven- tion of the City of Chicago. Let us all bear that in mind; it is simply an ap- pointive Convention, a voluntary body gotten together because the legislature refused to provide for a Charter Con- vention under the constitutional amend- ment. Let us not forget that. Let us try to get up a system that will have a degree of freedom, and that will place in charge of the public schools of the City of Chicago a board with some powers and some dignity and some responsibility. MR. RAYMER: I am inclined to think that Section 2 is entirely su- perflous as it is here, or as amended. In Article Y, of Section 8, we give au- thority to the superintendent of edu- cation to nominate for appointment by the Board of Education assistants and district superintendents and principals of schools. I am inclined to think, Mr. Chairman, that we should leave some duties for the Board of Education, in- stead of placing all of those duties un- der the direction of minor boards, and I move you as a substitute that No. 2 be not concurred in. THE CHAIRMAN: What will you do with the amendments? MR. RAYMER: Lay them on the table. MR. J. W. ECKHART: I favor Mr. Raymer ’s motion, I think that that should be cut out and left to the Board of Education. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Raymer moves that No. 2, and all substitutes and amendments thereto be laid upon the table. (Cries of ‘ ‘Question.’’) THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? MR, BROSSEAU: Mr. Chairman, I have here a copy of the original report of the committee, which was reported here on the third of October, and I would offer this part of the report as a substitute for the motion of Mr. Hill and for the motion made that we now have under consideration; I would move that this be substituted, and I will send it up to the desk. THE CHAIRMAN: Before that can be received I will have to put this motion, that all of this matter as in- dicated be laid on the table, because we have three substitutes now, Mr. Brosseau, to the original matter. December 26 731 1906 MR. BROSSEAU: I would like to have this read. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary read it. MR. BROSSEAU: This is the origi- nal report, page 15. THE SECRETARY: Page 15, right hand column: “The standing of teachers for ap- pointment and promotion shall be en- trusted to a board made up of the su- perintendent of education and of an as- sistant or district superintendent se- lected by the superintendent and three other members, who shall be appointed by the Board of Education, one each year for a term of three years, from an eligible list at least three times the number to be appointed, certified to by the superintendent; and such board/ ' etc. MR. HUNTER: When I asked a question originally of Mr. Hill it was simply for the purpose of getting an expression with reference to this board that is talked about. I don't see what the members of the Board of Education — I don't see why they should be elec- ted — if they are not competent to per- form their duties, they should not be there in my opinion. I think that the superintendent and the district Super- intendent, and three members of the Board of Education are the parties who should decide on this thing. I don't believe that it is necessary to go out- side, or it should not be necessary to go outside to get other members, or either of any other organization, or col- lege graduates or anything like that to set with these two men; I think they should be from the members of the Board of Education, and if they are not competent they should not be ap- pointed. MR. ROSENTHAL: I would like to ask the unanimous consent of the Con- vention for the consideration of Aider- man Ravmer's motion to eliminate this section entirely. T think the discussion here shows we are going into details that should be left to the Board of Edu- cation. I think Alderman Raymer 's motion ought to be passed. (Cries of “Question.") MR. ROSENTHAL: I will ask to have it substituted for my motion, if that is agreeable. MR. DEVER: I understand that the proposition is to give practically to the superintendent the power to name a board which will constitute, as they call it, a civil service board for the ex- amination and appointment of teachers for promotion. Now, if that is the thing, it seems to me that would be wrong, that we would be making a very grave mistake in doing that, if we propose to have the people of this city adopt this charter. I cannot re- call now — I confess I have only a lim- ited knowledge of the subject — but, anyway, I cannot recall at this time any public official in this country en- dowed with such complete autocratic powers as will this superintendent be possessed of, if the things we seem to favor here are finally carried, if they finally become a part of the basic law of this city. You giveito the Board of Education the power of appointing the superintendent, his office to be for a term of four years, and to hold that office subject only to. discharge there- from when two-thirds of the board that creates him says so. That of itself is an almost absolute guaranty that he will serve his term of office, as things go in this city. Beyond that, you give him the power of naming the text books; those text books are not to be changed during the term of four years; and you also now desire to let him name the board, which will have the complete control of the appointment and promotion of the public school teachers, so that after you get through with this whole subject you create one office practically, • that is the superin- tendent of public schools. December 26 732 1906 MR. McCORMICK: May I interrupt you for a moment? MR. DEVER: Yes, sir. MR. McCORMICK: I believe you are mistaken, or at least I think you are mistaken; I understood that the Board of Education was to appoint the three civil service examiners. MR. DEVER: Yes, out of the list to be prepared by the superintendent of education, who shall present at least three times as many names as are to be appointed. I understood the amend- ment was the one offered by Mr. Bros- seau. THE CHAIRMAN: That is not be- fore the house now. MR. DEVER: That is not before the house? THE CHAIRMAN: No. MR. BROSSEAU: I was just going to rise to correct Alderman Dever. The three members to be appointed by the Board of Education — well, I will say I am not stickling about that, that the members should be certified by the super- intendent; I am willing to strike those words out and let it be that the three members shall be selected by the Board of Education. • MR. DEVER: Out of how many? MR. BROSSEAU: Out of five. The purport of it is that the superintendent of schools shall be one of the examin- ers, one superintendent, and three mem- bers appointed by the Board of Educa- tion. MR. MacMILLAN: I submit this is apart from the proposition before the house which is to be voted upon; I call for the question. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brosseau’s matter is not before the house. MR. McCORMICK: I wish to speak before Alderman Raymer’s motion is put. The question as to whether or not the three other members controlling the board, if I may use the term, shall be members of the school board or not, is the one upon which we are called to vote. Now, if you have a board of five, of whom three are trustees, and of whom two are creatures of the trus- tees, it does not occur to me that the creatures of the trustees will have the backbone to oppose the wishes of their creator. I know of a public body in this community that had that experi- ence in a very recent time, and I am not speaking of the Board of Education, be- cause I do not want anybody to take offense, pardon me for not mentioning the name; whether it is under the civil service law or not, I cannot say, but the civil service commissioners are not ac- customed to holding personal examina- tions for applicants; it is their custom to appoint civil service sub-commission- ers or examiners, who prepare the ex- aminations for the applicants and pass upon them. For instance, the examina- tion under' which Mr. Shaw was recent- ly appointed consulting engineer for the city, the civil service commission- ers appointed several engineers, of whom Mr. Wisener, assistant chief en- gineer of the Sanitary District, was one, and those men passed on that examina- tion. It would appear to me that it would not be advisable or even fair to the members of the school board to ask them to go into the qualification of every candidate for promotion; nor does it appear to me that it would be good policy. It would be in the nature or in the way of introducing politics into it, and that is not to be tolerated. It is not to be expected that ambitious school teachers will not endeavor to use what influence they can to get the trustees to procure promotions for them. We know that every other kind of public employes use all the influence they can get upon their superiors to get promotion either in salary or in rank. When the trustees — if that is the word used by the school board members, the members of the school board — if the trustees are free from this pressure, bo December 26 733 1906 much the better for them. If they can appoint three reputable people to do this work so much the better for them, so much farther are they away from the pressure, a pressure which does untold harm to the very foundation of govern- mental organizations in this country. (Cries of “ Question, Question. ”) THE CHAIRMAN : The question is upon Alderman Raymer ’s motion that paragraph 2 and all the amendments thereto be laid on the table. Do you wish a roll call? (Cries of “Roll call.”) THE CHAIRMAN: Let there be a roll call. MR. DEYER: I would like to ask for information. I was not at the last session of the Convention, so I would like to ask where that will leave us with reference to this subject how will the appointments and promotions be made, and by what authority, if this whole subject is stricken out? MR. RAYMER: It seems to me, if I may answer that question, if I may be permitted to answer it, that it vests the power in the board to make provi- sion to take care of the provisions enumerated in Section 10 referred to. (Cries of “Question.”) Yeas — Beebe, Beilfuss, Bennett, Clet- tenberg, Crilly, Dever, Dixon, G. W.; Eckhart, B. A.; Eckhart, J. W.; Erick- son, Hunter, Kittleman, Linehan, Mac- Millan, O’Donnell, Owens, Pendarvis, Post, Raymer, Rosenthal, Shepard, Sun- ny, Yopicka, Walker, Werno, White, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 29. Nays — Baker, Brosseau, Brown, Eid- mann, Hill, McCormick, Revell, Taylor — 8 . (During roll call.) MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman, I desire to be recorded as voting no. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hill votes no. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recorded as voting aye for the purpose of moving a reconsid- eration of the question. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Young changes his vote to aye. Upon Mr. Raymer ’s motion that the entire sub- ject lie on the table, the ayes are 29, and the nays are 8, and 3 not voting, and the motion to lie on the table is car- ried. MR. POST: Might I ask, Mr. Chair- man, who does not vote on that ques- tion? THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will give you their names, those who are present and not voting. THE SECRETARY: Mr. McKinley, Mr. Shanahan and the Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read No. 11. MR. WERNO: Mr. Chairman, if the Convention will indulge me just a mo- ment, I would like to make a motion at this time. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the mo- tion? MR. WERNO: I would like to make a motion that the proposition published on page 702, relating to the power to regulate the legal observance of the weekly day of rest, commonly called Sunday, be made a special order imme- diately after the Convention gets through with the subject of Woman’s Suffrage. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection it will be so ordered. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman, I move that Woman’s Suffrage be made a special order at the opening of the next session of this Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection it is so ordered. MR. WERNO: Mr. Chairman, I would like also to have the Secretary read a communication sent up to him. THE CHAIRMAN: Has it to do with this subject? MR. WERNO: It relates to the same subject. December 26 734 1906 THE CHAIRMAN : The communi- cation will be read as soon as the pres- ent section under consideration is dis- posed of. MR. WERNO: And printed. THE CHAIRMAN: It will be printed. Let the Secretary read No. 11, on page 700. (The Secretary read No. 11.) THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. O’Donnell has an amendment, I believe. MR. O’DONNELL: I will give way to Professor Taylor. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I wish to state again very briefly the rea- sons for the introduction of this provi- sion. The child labor laws provide that children between fourteen and sixteen years of age cannot be employed more than eight hours nor after 7 o ’clock in the evening. That makes the employ- ment of these children precarious and transient. It leaves a large proportion of them on the street, as they neither can keep at work nor are they expected to be in school. Now, since the last session of the Convention I called together the chair- man of the Board of Education, the chief probationary officer of the Juven- ile Court, the superintendent of the de- partment of compulsory education, and the chief factory inspector, and with- out any reservation they each and all declared that in their administration of the laws committed to their care they had more difficulty with the chil- dren between fourteen and sixteen sim- ply because they were not required to be either at school or at work, than with any other class of children. The last school census of Chicago reports 3,219 boys over fourteen and under six- teen who are neither at school nor at work, and 4,857 girls over fourteen and under sixteen who are neither at school nor at work. The chief probation offi- cer of the Juvenile Court also says that by far the largest number of cases brought before that court for adjudica- tion in delinquency, not for dependency, are between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. In one single gang numbering between seven and eight boys there were twenty-three burglaries charged by the police, and I think if you will inquire at the police stations, and es- pecially of the police probation officers detailed at the department for service in the Juvenile Court you will get an almost unanimous endorsement of this wise and simple restraining provision for caring for these children. It is absolutely no hardship to the parents, for if they can show regularity of employment — and I would be per- fectly willing to have a number of hours per week instead of five hours per day, for five days a week inserted — I think there is no hardship to the par- ents at all, and in fact I know by per- sonal experience that many parents are only too grateful for the safeguard which the probation officers throw around their children in trying to se- cure their attendance at night school as they may now, or some regularity of employment. It is with no idea of in- terfering with parental cares, but only for the protection of little children who can neither get permanent work nor are expected to be at school, that I move the adoption of this provision. MR. HUNTER: Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Taylor made his explanation the other evening I was not impressed with the statements 1 he made as I am tonight. I received some information this afternoon from happening into a court room in which were assembled Judge Mack and Judge Carpenter, the most of the Municipal Court judges and nearly all of the captains and lieu- tenants of police, and the assistant su- perintendent was there, and during the general conversation from the remarks made by the different individuals who were there — and there were a number December 26 735 1906 of men and women who were probation officers — it was plainly evident that be- tween these ages the greatest trouble to all the departments was experienced. I am therefore heartily in favor of the motion. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. O'Donnell's amendment is in the hands of the Sec- retary. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. O'Don- nell: “The maximum age of compul- sory school attendance shall be four- teen years." THE CHAIRMAN: That is, instead of sixteen you desire to strike out the first sentence? MR. O'DONNELL: I move that for the entire section as it is. THE CHAIRMAN: The entire sec- tion? MR. O'DONNELL: Yes. Now, it is very essential to have good schools and it is necessary that every child in the community should learn to read, write and cipher. It is also necessary that the child should learn how to work. That is just as essential as to acquire an education. It is an education in it- self to learn to work for a given num- ber of hours, a given number of hours every day. The state should not seek to be the parent of the child if the state can avoid being the parent. The child goes to school here when it is six years of age, and continues on in school until the age of fourteen. If the child is a normal child at the age of fourteen it will have acquired an ordi- nary education and is fitted then, I think in training, in education, and in physique to go to work; to start in and earn a livelihood for itself, or probably to assist parents who are poor. Now, I introduced in the State Legis- lature the original juvenile court law. T also introduced in the State Legisla- ture several bills looking to the pre- vention of child labor, and during my practice in Chicago for twenty years I have given the little children a great deal of time and a great deal of study. Now, this proposition is that between the ages of fourteen and sixteen years, the child, if it goes out on the' street will be liable to be taken up by a tru- ant officer and dragged to the Juvenile Court if it is not engaged in some em- ployment. No opportunity under this law will be given it to seek employ- ment. It will be hounded continually. Remember, gentlemen, we are not legis- lating here for the great majority of the children of this community. The great majority of the children of this commu- nity have good homes and good par- ents; and let us allow those good par- ents to look after their children with- out having the state come in and in- terfere. When the parent deems it wise after the child comes to the age of fourteen that it shall go to work let not the state dare interfere with that prerogative of the parent. . The parent loves the child truly. It knows what is best for the child. The home is the institution to bring the child up in, not any of these institutions that you have around here in any of these different schools. The child’ that is a product of one of these schools is a problem. It is the home that is the telling thing with the child. Now, what do you propose to do here? “The maximum age of compul- sory school attendance shall be in- creased from fourteen to sixteen years." Then there is a saving clause: “But the children between the ages of fourteen years and sixteen shall not be required to attend school for such time during said years as they may be in good faith engaged in regular employ- ment not less than five hours daily for not less than five days in each week." T maintain that the age between fourteen and sixteen ought to be the age that the parent would be allowed exclusive discretion of what his child December 26 736 1906 shall do. If the parent wants it to go to school until it is sixteen, let the par- ent have that privilege, let the parent send the child to school. If the parent desires the child to go to work the par- ent should be allowed to have his child go to work. If the parent deems it essential that the child learn how to work so that it can support itself in future life let the parent do so. Now, the law Says that a child of fourteen is mature to the extent that it can select its own guardian. It gives it credit for a sufficient degree of in- telligence against its father and mother and all the world, the law says that the child can select its own guardian with- out any interference from any person Or persons whatsoever. I know of one case here that came to my own notice in the last few days. A little child was employed down here on State street during the rush season, a girl over the age of fourteen, and one day down there looking in the shop windows since the employment ceased a few days before Christmas, the child was accosted on the street, interrogated where its father find mother lived, what its father's business was, and almost forcibly taken into custody. Now, that is only one instance of what happens here every day. The children are afraid to go out on the street, and they will be more afraid to go out on the street if this law here is carried to the ex- tent that this amendment suggests that it shall be carried. I want to see the children off the streets. I do not want to allow them time to fall into evil ways, but I want to say to you that we must call a halt upon the State assuming parental con- trol of the child when we have thou- sands and thousands of good homes in this city eager and willing to take care of their children. Now, I do not know what actuates this army that we have employed now in the place of the parents that surrounds this Juvenile Court, but in their mad career they may blast the life of these chil- dren if they are given the power to do so. Mind you, gentlemen of the Con- vention, the state law says that after the age of fourteeh, the state law at pres- ent fixes the compulsory school atten- dance age at fourteen years, and not above it. The present state law that was threshed out in the legislature where every man in this Convention and else- where representing his district in the leg- islature had something to say about it, and the united wisdom of the state fixed this age, the age of compulsory school attendance at fourteen. The Juvenile Court law still apper- tains no matter what age the child is if the child is only thirteen or fourteen, or over fourteen, fifteen or sixteen, if the child is neglected or dependent or incorrigible the Juvenile Court steps in and takes possession of that child and commits it to some institution if there is no home to guard it and to guide it. It would be a great mistake for you to adopt this amendment. The princi- pal objection I See to it is that every little child going out on the street is apt to be hounded and terrorized and made to feel that they are in the position of criminals. If a child has arrived at this maximum school age, the age of fourteen, it has a right to go out on the street to seek employment, to go to the parks and to enjoy itself, if the parent is willing; and for the small number of children that would fit in the class that Professor Taylor speaks of you would put all the good children of the City in a position where they are liable to be called criminals and taken up off the street as criminals if you pass this amendment. Now, a great many of the successful men who own their Stores today in this city and were successful in business went to work long before they were fourteen years of age. I know several successful December 26 737 1906 business men and professional men, too, that when they were eleven or twelve or thirteen years of age went to work for one reason or another; sometimes be- cause they had the opportunity, some- times to support a sick father or a sick mother, to keep the wolf from the door, and I feel that it would be a great in- justice to the children of this city to pass this amendment. Now, I have been watching this Juve- nile Court and its great corps of at- tendants, and I have gone down several times to see the way it conducts its business, and the little child is not al- lowed to say a word. The sensitive little thing is brought up there in all the confusion of the court, and a truant offi- cer does all the talking. The little child is so abashed and scared it cannot make itself heard, nor can it speak intelli- gently. The judge there, sitting in all bis majesty, strikes a note of terror into the little heart and mind. The child is paralyzed. There may be some incor- rigible children, but there are very few, very few of them compared to the many that go there. Now, let us not make this mistake. I fear you are loading down your char- ter with a lot of unnecessary things, and that you will rouse among the people great opposition to it. This is one thing you should leave to the parents and to parental control. Do not fly in the face of the judgment of the sincere men of this state in raising the maximum school age. This is a question which the legis- lature is sincere on. There is nothing in this Juvenile Court law to bias the judgment of the members; it comes from their hearts and it is their best judg- ment. Let not the City of Chicago fly in the face of the judgment of the legislators Of the state. There is no motive in hav- ing a law of this kind, but the best hiotive in the world. Let the thousands and thousands Of good parents in good homes govern their Children between the ages of fourteen and sixteen years, and let the state cease to compel children to go to school, cease to badger and browbeat and intimidate children that appear on the street, over the age of fourteen. Why, a boy of fourteen years of age is quite a husky boy these days. Look around and see them. Girls at the age of fourteen in some countries marry, and I think in this state with the con- sent of their parents they can marry. Now, at this age, when the home will do everything, when the parents ’ watch- fulness and care is the great thing, you will turn the children over to the state. I know that Professor Taylor is the kindest of men. What he means to do is done in the best spirit in the world, but I say that I have just as much experi- ence as he has in these matters here in Chicago. I have given these mat- ters my especial attentioh. I know that everything he does is from the kind- ness of his heart, but I am afraid that back of all this they want to have more truant officers, they w r ant to have more power, they W’ant to domineer more over the children. I think it a great mis- take and something that will bring about a bitter feeling against the present con- ditions. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, cer- tainly the subject is of great importance, and it is w r orthy of a very careful con- sideration. I am quite aware that Mr. O ’Donnell with the rest of tis w r ants w r hat is best for the ehildren of Chi- cago. Now’, in a word, what is the situation 1 ? The state law provides that up to the age of fourteen children must attend some school for a period of 110 days in each year. After the age of fourteen the compulsory department of the Board of Education cannot compel them to go to school. Thefe are certain kinds of wOrk between the ages of fourteen and sixteen Which they can engage in. There arc certain other kinds of work that they December 26 738 1906 are already prohibited by state law from undertaking. Now, I speak out of some knowledge of what results from this situ- ation. Today the streets of your city and es- pecially certain sections of this city have not scores, but hundreds of children who have passed the age of fourteen and are not regularly employed but are turned loose on the streets of Chicago to do practically as they will. And the re- port of the compulsory educational de- partment of the Board of Education is today in line with what Professor Tay- lor has said, what Judge Mack, after much experience and careful study of the situation, bears witness to, that one of the great sources of juvenile crime in the city of Chicago today is that class of uncared for children between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. Now, everyone who has made any study of childhood at all, who knows anything about the modern science of childhod, knows that the impressionable years, the years of danger to boyhood and girlhood are between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. And, Mr. Chair- man, if there is any reason under Heaven why the state should take in its charge the welfare of the children of Chicago at all, the same reason applies with ten-fold force to children between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. Now, this provision here is very fair and it is very simple. It merely states this, that a child after the age of four- teen if regularly employed is exempt from the compulsory educational law. That is all there is to it. But if they are not so regularly employed then the state proposes to say, or the city through this charter provision, that the state shall extend its supervision over these children between the ages of four- teen and sixteen and send them to school. T believe that the judgment of all men and women in this city who know best the state of childhood in this city between the ages of fourteen and sixteen entirely coincide with this pro- vision, and if they were permitted, Mr. Chairman, would emphasize the abso- lute necessity of some such extension of the compulsory aducational law as this. It is not necessarily an infringement on the rights of any home or any par- ent any more than it would be between the ages of twelve and fourteen, be- cause the danger age of children is not between the ages of twelve and four- teen, but between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. It is a perfectly fair prop- osition in every way. Its whole aim and intent is to protect the childhood of the City of Chicago, and I believe we should make a great mistake indeed if we missed this opportunity of pro- tecting the children of Chicago be- tween the ages of fourteen and six- teen. If the parents desire them to go to work there is absolutely nothing in this law that prevents them from hav- ing them go to work. If, however, they are not at work it simply says that the children, and hundreds of them are today adrift on the streets of the City of Chicago, many of those streets are the breeding places of juvenile crime, shall be where children between four- teen and sixteen ought to be if they are not regularly employed, in the schools of Chicago. I certainly hope that this provision will carry. MR. BEEBE: Mr. Chairman, I want to make more or less of a personal ap- plication to this particular thing. Right in my neighborhood less than two weeks ago, I saw a crowd of about twenty boys; one of them was nine- teen and the rest of them were between the ages of fourteen and sixten. After some inquiry I found that four of those boys had a police record, and I found that the reason for it was that they had nothing to do; that they spent their days and nights running the streets, simply driven from place to December 26 739 1906 place, gambling here and there. I talked with the policemen in the neighborhood and they were uniform in the idea that there must be some extension of the age of compulsory edu- cation if anything was to be done, and I hunted up some of the parents and they were uniformly in favor of the extension of the law of compulsory education. In my judgment this will go a long way towards taking care of some of the problems we have now in relation to the boys between those ages. I think that that is the most dangerous period of a boy's life, and I am firmly and strongly of the opinion that the adoption of some measure of this kind would be a great material benefit to the people of this city and the boys of this city. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question on Mr. O 'Donnell 's sub- stitute? MR. McCORMICK : Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak a word on this subject of education. I have refrained addressing many remarks on the subject of educa- tion, because I have not studied the ques- tion as much as many' other gentlemen here. But when you come to the ques- tion of boys of from fourteen to sixteen years of age, perhaps I can be listened to with some degree of confidence, be- cause I may remember that age better than some of the members present. It is not a very long time since I passed through the years of from fourteen to sixteen. In these days boys learn to read much earlier than they did ten or fifteen years ago, I imagine, but it is practically true today, as it was then, that when a boy comes to the age of four- teen he arrives at the age of imagination. His imagination does not take to science, or to the study of political economy, or studies like that, but he bends in his untrained ways towards adventures of various kinds. If the boy was properly looked after he probably read stories of the great explorers, of the crusade and the conqueror, and his mind was turned towards war. If he was not so fortunate as that he undoubtedly took to dime novels, of the Dynamite Dick type and the James Brothers, and probably in a few years he would be reading about the Auto- matic Trio. That is the kind of litera- ture that a boy of that age naturally turns towards. If a boy of fourteen or sixteen gets money enough together he does not buy Bryce’s American Com- monwealth; if he can get $20.00 together he buys an automatic revolver, and if he can get only $2.00 he buys a bull dog revolver, whether he intends to com- mit murder or it is merely in the spirit of romanticism. I believe a boy is in great danger of committing a crime from such surroundings when he is allowed to go in that path at that age, or at least that it breeds in him the instinct that will lead him to that another time in his life. It is but a short step from that age, the age of boyhood, to the age of manhood. Now, in the public schools in England, where the habits perhaps are not exactly the same as in this country, I have been told that more boys are expelled for those habits during those ages than during any other period, than when they are older, than when they had arrived at eighteen or twenty years, and so forth. At the school where I had the pleasure to attend, which did not happen to be a public school, but a boarding school, where a boy had the benefits, if I may use the word, of the exclusive attention of trained educators, the age of fifteen was the turning age. Boys became older boys at that time. Instead of having less attention paid to him he had more. After fifteen the boys were allowed and ordered to go into studies every night, and more care was taken of them at that time than at any other time. Without their knowing it they were encouraged to go out for walks in company with the December 26 740 1906 master; they were encouraged to go out on the river in canoes; and since I have grown up I have been informed — al- though I did not dream it at that time — that the purpose was to watch the boys through those crucial years so that they would be able to take more care of them- selves. The experience of Dr. Taylor, which is undoubtedly as great as that of any man in this room, would be of itself sufficient to make me vote for this even were it not for my own memory of these things in years that are not so many ago. MR. PENDARVIS: Can we not vote on the question, Mr. Chairman? I would like to be recorded on this question, but I have to catch my train. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair has no right to record anybody who is not pre- sent. How soon have you to catch your train? MR, PEND AR VIS: Ten twenty-five. THE CHAIRMAN : We will have the vote in the meantime. (Cries of “Question.”) MR. POST: I wish to say a word, and perhaps we can pair on this. MR. PEND AR VIS: I would like to vote against Mr. O’Donnell — against the question. MR. POST : Then we cannot pair. THE CHAIRMAN: Just one min- ute. MR, POST : I dislike very much to disagree with my friend, Mr. O ’Donnell. I am very glad that until now we have parted company but once, and even now our disagreement is not one of principle. I enter thoroughly into his view of repugnance to this interference, and with due fear of the child labor laws. I can- not overlook the fact, however, that whether the conditions are normal, or whether they are abnormal, there are conditions which exist now that we must take notice of and that we must act in regard to. Whenever I go into the Juve- nile Court, and whenever I see these chil- dren pulled in for crimes, or charged with crimes, I recollect that when I was a boy out in the country I committed pre- cisely the same crimes, possibly. I used to commit burglary by breaking into the barn; I used to rob the grocery, or the apple barrel — it was not a grocery, and it was not an apple barrel, perhaps, but an apple tree out in the orchard. I realize if I had been living under these conditions that these boys are living un- der I would have gone, probably, to the reform school, and would have been very lucky if I did not get into the peniten- tiary. Mr. President, in order that we may have a few homes that are comfort- able and luxurious we are destroying the homes of the great masses of the people. When my friend Mr. O’Donnell speaks about children of fourteen and sixteen taken care of in their homes, he appeals to me in reference to the homes that exist, but I cannot forget that we have very few homes in which the children can be taken care of. They are growing fewer and fewer. Now, the practical ques- tion is this : Whether we like it, or whether we don ’t ; we have a set of laws which practically forbids the em- ployment of children under sixteen years of age. There are some modifications of that, I believe? A MEMBER: Yes, sir. MR. POST: But substantially the children are forbidden freedom of em- ployment until they are sixteen years of age. But they are not compelled to go to school when they reach fourteen. If we adopt my friend Mr. O ’Donnell ’s motion we are going to maintain that condition, and for a period of two years children will be allowed to be absent from school — they will not be allowed to work, and they will not be compelled to go to school. Now, in this great city and under the existing normal conditions, it seems to me that is a bad thing, and while we have got to hold to the general principle, under these circumstances, and on the question of this kind make an exception, rhat is my reason for sup- December 26 741 1906 porting — for opposing my friend, Mr. 0 ’Donnell ’s motion, and supporting that of Mr. Taylor. Just a word in conclusion: I wish to say, Mr. President, by way of remind- er to our friend, Mr. McCormick, that it is a well known fact which in course of years he will discover, that as he begins to get old memory becomes more acute than it was. I have reference to the period of boyhood. The probability is that those of us who are nearly, or over sixty years of age, remember our boyhood much more distinctly, probably circumstances and events of our boy- hood we remember much more distinctly than does Mr. McCormick in his com- parative youthful period of life today. (Laughter.) THE CHAIRMAN: Shall we have a vote on this question now? MR. EIDMANN : Just one question: 1 would like to ask Prof. Taylor’s con- struction on ‘ 1 regular employment. ’ ’ MR. TAYLOR : Good faith covers all that. THE CHAIRMAN : Are you ready for the question? MR. O’DONNELL: I want a roll call. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the roll be called on the motion of Mr. O’Donnell’s substitute. Will the gentlemen take their seats, there are just two more para- graphs to this educational bill. We have got to get through that tonight. Yeas — Erickson, McKinley, O’Donnell, Shepard — 4. Nays — Baker, Beebe, Beilfuss, Ben- nett, Brosseau, Brown, Clettenberg, Crilly, Dever, Dixon, G. W. ; Eckhart, B. A.; Eckhart, J. W.; Eidmann, Hill, Hunter, Kittle- man, Linehan, McCormick, Owens, Pen- darvis, Post, Raymer, Revell, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Taylor, Vopicka, Walker, Werno, White, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer —33. MR. POST: There are some matters in the educational bill not disposed. of. THE CHAIRMAN: Revenue features only. On the motion to substitute the yeas are 4 and the nays 33. The mo- tion is lost. THE CHAIRMAN : The question is to adopt the section as amended. Those in favor signify the same by saying- aye; opposed, no. It is carried. MR. O’DOInNELL: I would like to be recorded as voting no, Mr. Chairman, on that proposition. THE CHAIRMAN: Let Mr. O’Don- nell be recorded as voting no. MR. ROSENTHAL: I have two sec- tions here, amendments to fhe educational system, which I would like to have read and be incorporated. THE CHAIRMAN : Let them be read. Do you desire action tonight? MR. ROSENTHAL: If we have a quorum. THE CHAIRMAN : The Secretary will read them, please. The Secretary read the amendments, as hereinafter printed. THE CHAIRMAN: That was dis- posed of at a prior meeting. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the matter of the archi- tect was disposed of. I understand also that Mr. Shanahan is ready to move re- consideration of that matter, so that we can take it up now. THE CHAIRMAN: Let us dispose of these two remaining sections here, and then we can take these matters up. I believe there won ’t be much contest about this question and pensions, No. 12. The Secretary will read No. 12. The Secretary read No. 12, as printed in the proceedings at page 700. MR. G. W. DIXON: I move its adop- tion. MR. POST: I move to strike out the passage there that provides for com- pulsory contribution from the teachers. THE CHAIRMAN: It does not pro- pose compulsory contribution, but volun- tary contributions. December 26 742 1906 MR. POST: Oh, is that it? I was mistaken then. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. It is carried. THE CHAIRMAN: The next sec- tion. THE SECRETARY: Number 13, page 700. (Reads.) MR. BENNETT: I move its adop- tion. THE CHAlitMAN : All those in fav- or signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. THE SECRETARY: “By Mr. Ritter: The charter shall provide that no police station, fire engine house or barn shall hereafter be built within four hundred feet of any school-board building.” THE CHAIRMAN: What will you do with that? . MR. ROSElViHAL: I move that it be laid on the table. I don’t think that should be a charter provision. I think that should be by ordinance. THE CHAIRMAN : I think that is required by ordinance. All those in fav- or of laying it on the table will signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. MR. POST: I move that that be laid over until Mr. Ritter is here. He evi- dently has been detained. I do not think we ought to pass that in that way. MR. G. W. DIXON : I move that that be deferred. THE CHAIRMAN: If there are no objections it will be deferred. MR. B. A. ECKHART : I now r move that we take up the report of the Com- mittee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan with reference to Section 3, re- ferred to the committee some few days ago. THE CHAIRMANS That is publish- ed on page 704? MR. B. A. ECKHART: Page 699, I believe. MR. ROSENTHAL: I would like to have Mr. Eckhart ’s consent to a con- sideration of these two sections, which are really an amendment to the act THE CHAIRMAN: I didn’t get you, Mr. Rosenthal. MR. ROSENTHAL: I asked the con- sent of Air. Eckhart to the consideration of two motions that I have sent up to the desk. AIR. SHEPARD: I do not think that we should take up that matter at this time; it is liable to take a long time. THE CHAIRAI AN : Gentlemen, what do you wish to do? AIR. B. A. ECKHART: I move the adoption of the substitute offered by the committee, and I ask the Secretary to read it. THE CHAIRMAN : The one about the acquiring of property? AIR, B. A. ECKHART: On page 703, the report of the Committee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan. THE CHAIRAI AN : The last para- graph on that page, left hand column — I should say, the last paragraph on page 704, is the portion you want. AIR. B. A. ECKHART: That is not the correct proposition. THE SECRETARY: It is found on page 698, left hand column, page 698, School Property. That is merely the original, Air. Eckhart; the resport is on page 705, the recommendation of the committee is as follows: (Reading report as printed). MR. B. A. ECKHART: I move its adoption. AIR. POST : That involves what seems to me to be an exceedingly important, not to say somewhat dangerous alteration of the existing situation wdth regard to school board property. I don ’t think that at this hour we should take that up. I wish to be heard upon that with some degree of fullness, so that I may make my position understood. I do not believe that this Charter Convention un- derstands — I do not believe that Mr. Eckhart understands what he is prob- ably asking, or what probably would be December 26 743 1906 the effect upon the financial interests of the school board with reference to its landed property, by the adoption of this amendment. But I ask that it be de- ferred for the meeting tomorrow, if we have a meeting tomorrow, or if not, until we meet again. I don’t care what the time is, so that it can be taken up and considered with deliberation. MR. B. A. ECKHART : I have no ob- jection to having it go over. THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Your committee has another report, Mr. Eck- hart, upon another proposition, on page 704, upon the question of purchase or condemnation of property for park pur- poses. MR. TAYLOR : Before we pass off of education THE CHAIRMAN: We won’t pass away from Education. Do you wish to call that report up, Mr. Eckhart? “The city may acquire by purchase outside as well as within the city limits, for munici- pal purposes, and may acquire property outside of the city limits by purchase or condemnation, for park, boulevard or for- est preserve purposes. ’ ’ A DELEGATE: I move the adoption of the resolution. MR. TAYLOR : I claim the right to have the attention of the Convention on the subject of Education now. THE CHAIRMAN: All right. This will be withdrawn, and Dr. Taylor will have the floor for his educational reso- lution. MR. TAYLOR: I offer the resolution offered by me and printed in the pro- ceedings at page 598. I might state that it is with the urgent request of the Library Club of Chicago, representatives of the Field Museum and the quasi pub- lic educational institutions, that want to co-operate with each other for the ex- tension of their facilities to the people on a larger scale. I should hardly think this would bring forth any discussion. It is on page 598, second column. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read it. The Secretary then read the resolu- tion. MR. RAYMER: I think it would be a very bad proposition for this Conven- tion to adopt this resolution. It seems to me we have in our midst enough civic bodies to take good care that the differ- ent bodies appointed by the mayor per- form the functions for which they are appointed without creating another board of seventeen whose sole duty it would be to interfere with the workings of the different boards now provided for and appointed by ' the mayor. I move you that this be laid upon the table. MR. TAYLOR: May I state, in an- swer to Alderman Raymer that the City Council of Chicago has already author- ized the mayor to appoint such a com- mission, that the mayor has appointed such a commission, that there is such a commission in service ; that it is very harmless, that it is trying to bring into co-operation the public library and the public schools and the other great li- braries of the City of Chicago, a co- operation which every city in the United States has to a greater degree than we have. This is a matter of advisory re- lationship, and the representatives of all these organizations are urgent for the passage of this section so that we may have co-operative effort. There is no African in the wood pile, and I assure the alderman it is entirely harmless and wholly an advisory relation. MR. SHEPARD: I second the mo- tion to lay on the table. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion of Alderman Raymer that it be laid on the table. The question “ts whether the motion shall be laid on the table. The motion prevailed. A DELEGATE : I have a resolution which I should like to have read and published. December 26 744 1906 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you desire to have it read? MR. McCORMICK : I don’t care so much about having it read, but I would like to have it printed. THE CHAIRMAN: Send it up to the Secretary and it will be printed. The Chair has a communication from A. J. Carey, which will be printed and published in the proceedings. Chicago, 111., Dec. 26, 1906. Hon. Milton J. Foreman, Chicago Charter Convention, City: My Dear Sir — My attention has just been called to the fact that on Saturday Mr. Wilkins introduced a resolution in the Convention to the effect that 1 1 Dur- ing the life of this Charter the children in the public schools shall not be segre- gated or separated in buildings, rooms or classes on account of nationality, race or color. ’ ’ Believing that you see at a glance the righteousness of this proposition, and believing that you stand for all that is just and right to all men, I hasten to call your especial attention to this reso- lution of Mr. Wilkins’ and beg that you give it your heartiest support. Faithfully, A. J. CAREY, Pastor Bethel A. M. E. Church. Residence, 3428 Yernon Ave. THE CHAIRMAN: The Conven- tion will meet again tomorrow afternoon and the special order will be the question of Woman Suffrage, the extension of suf- frage, after which the Sunday Closing Law will be taken up. MR. G. W. DIXON : What meetings are arranged for this week for this Con- vention? THE CHAIRMAN: We have agreed to meet tomorrow afternoon and the next afternoon we hope to get through. The Convention will stand adjourned until to- morrow afternoon at 2 o ’clock P. M. And the Convention stood adjourned to meet Thursday, December 27th, at 2 o ’clock P. M. December 26 745 1906 MEMORANDA. These memoranda indicate the various matters adopted by the Convention. (See page 50 and succeeding pages of the proceedings. I. SCOPE OF PROPOSED LEGIS- LATION. Action on all paragraphs under this section has been deferred. 1. A complete charter shall be drawn and submitted to the Legislature em- bodying the resolutions adopted by this Convention. Alternative to 1. Separate bills shall be drawn covering the following sub- jects: a. Consolidation (including parks), b. Public utilities, c. Education, d. Revenue, e. Amendments (if any) of the Mu- nicipal Court Act. f. All other charter provisions, which shall be submitted to a separate vote for adoption. II. CONSOLIDATION. 1. The corporate authorities existing at present for the government of the park systems of Chicago shall be abol- ished and the management of the parks shall become a department of the city government. 2. The administration of the public school system of the city of Chicago and of the Public Library shall con- stitute departments of the city govern- ment. III. THE MAYOR. 1. The charter shall continue sub- stantially the provisions of the pres- ent laws regarding the qualifications and executive functions of the mayor. 2. The charter shall continue the provisions of the present laws regard- ing the relation of the mayor to the city council. Resolved, that it is the sense of this Convention that a clause be inserted in the charter designating a city official who shall act as mayor during the ab- sence or inability of the mayor. First Alternative to 2 b. The mayor shall have a right to a seat in the city council, but shall have no vote. He shall have the right to speak and present messages and intro- duce measures subject to the general rules of procedure of the city council. Second Alternative to 2: The charter shall continue the pres- ent provisions of the law regarding the relation of the mayor to the city coun- cil, except that he shall not preside at the meetings of the city council, but the city council shall elect its own presiding officer from its members. 3. The veto power of the mayor shall be as now prescribed by law. 4. The term of office of the mayor shall be four years. IV. ELECTIONS. First alternative to 1 : Elective city officers shall be nominated under a sys- tem of direct primaries, with appropri- ite provision for independent nomina- tions by petition. 2. The names of all the nominees for each office shall be printed on the ballot under the title of the office for which they are candidates, in alphabeti- cal order, and the designation of the party, if any, to which they belong. The following resolution on the sub- ject of suffrage for women is still pend- ing: 3. The charter shall contain no pro- December 26 746 1906 vision for conferring the right of suf- frage on women. 4. a. The election of all city offi- cers, including those for the municipal court, shall be held in the spring. Pro- vided, however, that judges of the mu- nicipal court shall be elected at a time when no offices other than judicial are to be filled. 5. Candidates and political commit- tees shall be required to make .sworn statements of receipts and expenditures of any campaign for nomination or election. Y. CIVIL SERVICE. 1. All departments of the city gov- ernment shall be under an appropriate civil service law. Alternative to 1: a. The civil service law shall apply to the department of public parks. The application of the civil service law to the department of public parks shall not operate in and of itself to dis- charge the present employees. b. The civil service law shall apply to tne municipal court. The Bailiff and Chief Clerk of the . Municipal Court shall be subject to re- moval by a majority of the judges of the court, after a hearing, for incompe- tency, inefficiency, malfeasance or mis- feasance in office. The reasons for such removal shall be specified in writing and shall be spread at large upon the records of the court. Section 2 of Civil Service, together with resolution printed in the proceed- ings of December 6, have been referred to the Committee on Municipal Elec- tions, Appointment and Tenure of Office, with instructions to report to the Con- vention within ten days. VI. THE CITY COUNCIL. The charter shall provide for redis- tricting the city into seventy wards, of compact and contiguous territory, and with an equitable distribution of area and population, as soon as possible after the adoption of this charter, one aider- man to be elected from each ward. The city shall thereafter be redis- tricted by the City Council every ten years after the federal census has been taken, but no more than seventy wards shall be made. 2. /The compensation of aldermen shall be at the rate of thirty-five hun- dred dollars per annum. The term of office of aldermen shall be four years. The aldermen shall be elected at the same time as the mayor. VII. POWERS OF THE CITY COUN- CIL IN GENERAL. 1. The powers of the city council shall be as now prescribed by law, ex- cept as modified by this charter. The city council shall have all powers of local legislation w r hich can, under the con- stitution, be vested in a municipality; subject to the constitution of the state, the provisions of the charter, and the general laws of the state. 2. The specification of particular powers shall never be construed as a limitation upon the general powers granted by the charter; it being in- tended to grant and bestow upon the City of Chicago all the powers of mu- nicipal government which can constitu- tionally be delegated to it by the legislature, and which are not expressly prohibited to it by this charter, or by the constitution of the state; and are not in conflict with any general law of the state. 3. No ordinance shall be passed finally on the day it is introduced, except when approved by an affirmative vote of two- thirds of all the members of the city council. December 26 747 1906 VIII. POWERS OF THE CITY COUN- CIL WITH REGARD TO OFFICES. The office of City Clerk shall cease to be a Charter office, and the City Council shall have power by ordinance to provide for the method of choosing the City Clerk and to provide for the duty of the City Clerk. The City Treasurer shall be ex-officio city collector. 3. The City Council shall have power to investigate any department of the city government and the official acts and conduct any city officer and the making, terms, and performance of any public contract, and for the purpose of ascertaining facts in connection with such investigation to compel the attend- ance of witnesses and the production of material documents and books. IX. POLICE POWER. 1. The police power of the city shall extend to the prevention of crime, to the preservation and advancement of local peace, safety, morals, health, order and comfort, and to the prevention of fraud and extortion within the community, by measures of regulation, licensing, require- ment of bonds, inspection, registration, restraint and prohibition, as well as by the establishment of municipal services. X. REVENUE. GENERAL TAXATION. Section 1. The City Council of the City of Chicago shall annually in the first quarter of its fiscal year, levy a general tax for all city, school, park and library purposes for such year, not ex- ceeding in the aggregate, exclusive of the amounts levied for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness per centum of the assessed value of the taxable property of said city as assessed and equalized according to law for gen- i eral taxation. The said City Council in its annual levy shall specify the re- 1 I spective amounts levied for the pay- ! ment of bonded indebtedness and the : interest on bonded indebtedness, the | amount levied for general city purposes, amount levied for educational purposes, the amount levied for school building purposes, the amount levied for park purposes and the amount levied for li- brary purposes. The county clerk shall extend upon the collector's warrant all of such taxes, subject to the limita- tion herein contained, in a single col- umn as the City of Chicago tax. In case the aggregate amount levied, ex- clusive of the amount levied for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, shall exceed per centum of such assessed value such ex- cess shall be disregarded, and the resi- due only treated as certified for exten- sion. In such case all items in such tax levy except those for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, shall be re- duced pro rata. The city treasurer of the City of Chicago shall keep separate funds in conformity to said tax levy, which funds shall be paid out by him, upon order of the proper authority for the purposes only for which the same were levied. 2. The Board of Education of the City of Chicago shall in January of each year prepare and transmit to the City Council a statement of its receipts and expenditures for the preceding calen- dar year stating therein the sources of its receipts and the several objects and purposes of its expenditures. It shall also prepare and transmit to the City Council in January of each year an es- timate of its expenditures for the cur- rent calendar year, stating therein the several objects and purposes of such expenditures. 3. The Board of Park Commissioners of the City of Chicago shall in January of each year prepare and transmit to the City Council a statement of its re- December 26 748 1906 ceipts and expenditures for the preceding calendar year stating therein the sources of its receipts and the several objects and purposes of its expendi- tures. It shall also prepare and transmit to the City Council in January of each year an estimate of its expendi- tures for the current year, stating therein the several objects and purposes of such expenditures. 4. The Board of Library Directors of the City of Chicago shall in January of each year prepare and transmit to the City Council a statement of its receipts and ex- penditures for the preceding calendar year, stating therein the sources of its receipts and the several objects and pur- poses of its expenditures. It shall also prepare and transmit to the City Council in January of each year an estimate of its expenditures for the current year, stating thereing the several objects and purposes of such expenditures. Action on the following propositions has been deferred pending the report of the special commitee on revenue in- formation. Alternative to 1: a. The limit of the tax rate fixed by the charter shall not apply to taxes levied for school purposes, but taxes shall be levied for school build- ing and educational purposes as now provided by law. b. The limit of the tax rate to be fixed by the charter shall not 'apply to taxes levied for library purposes, but the City Council shall annually levy for library purposes a tax of not less than one mill and not more than one and one-half mill on the' dollar on all taxable property in the city. c. The City Council shall have power to levy annually a tax of two mills on the dollar on all taxable property for a police pension fund. 2. The City Council shall have power to levy a tax of one per cent, additional to the rate fixed by the above resolu- tion for a specific purpose or purposes, provided that such additional tax levy shall have been approved by a major- ity of those voting on the question at a general or special election. 3. a. The City Council shall have power to tax and license, or either, any trade, occupation or business carried on wholly or in part within the city limits, and all persons, firms or corporations owning or using franchises or privi- leges. 4. a. The City Council shall also have power to tax or license all wheeled vehicles used upon the streets of the city, or any particular class of such vehicles. The income therefrom shall be used in the repair and improvement of streets and alleys of the city ex- clusively. Alternative to 5: The City Council shall have power to make local im- provements by special assessment or by special taxation of contiguous prop- erty or otherwise; but not more than 50 per cent, of the cost of repaving any street or alley shall thus be im- posed upon contiguous property, after such street or alley has once been paved, and the expense thereof paid in whole or in part by special assessment or special taxation. XI. INDEBTEDNESS. 1. The charter shall vest in the city the power to assume and incur debts and issue bonds in the manner and to the extent that such power is permitted to be granted by the constitutional amendment of 1904. XII. EXPENDITURES. 1. The provisions of the present city act regarding the annual appropriation ordinanc, the limitation of expendi- December 26 749 1906 tures and contracts by such appropria- tions, the keeping of a separate fund for each appropriation, and the require- ment of warrants for payments, shall be substantially embodied in the charter. XIII. TPROPERTY. 1. The city may acquire property by purchase or condemnation for any pur- pose for which it may exercise the power of taxation. The following paragraph together with all substitutes and amendments thereto as printed in the proceedings of December 14, 1906, have been re-re- ferred to the Committee on Rules, Pro- cedure and General Plan. The com- mittee report will be found under “Res- olutions.” 2. The city may so acquire property outside of as well as within the city lim- its for any municipal purpose. XIV. CONTRACTS. 1. Municipal services may be per- formed and municipal works carried out by the city directly or by means of con- tract. XY. STREETS AND PUBLIC PLACES. All private temporary users of space above or below the level of streets, al- leys or other public places shall pay compensation to the city according to some definite scale to be fixed by gen- eral ordinance. This provision shall not apply to grants for public utilities. XVI. PUBLIC UTILITIES. 1. The provisions of the Mueller law and the limitations contained therein (including the twenty-year limit on franchises), except as herein otherwise provided, shall be extended to all in- tramural railways, subways, telephone, telegraph, gas, electric lighting and power plants, and other local public utility works operated in, over, under or upon the streets and public places of the city, also to docks, wharves and their necessary appurtenances. 2. The present powers regarding water works and water supply shall be con- tinued. 3. Any consent granted by the city for the private operation of public util- ity works shall be made subject to the continuing exercise of the city’s street and police powers concerning the struc- ture or works permitted, whether re- served in the grant or not. Alternative to 4: Such consent hereafter granted, shall further be subject to' the power of the city, whether expressly reserved in the grant or not, to make reasonable regu- lations of the charges to be made in the operation of such public utilities. The city shall have no power to grant away or limit the subsequent exercise of this right, except that the question of rea- sonableness of any such regulation shall always be determined with due regard to the provisions and limitations of the grant under which such public utility is being operated. 5. Such consent shall further be sub- ject to the right of the city to require adequate service and reasonable exten- sions at all times. No city officer or employe shall di- rectly or indirectly ask for, demand or accept for his own use, or for the use of another, any free pass, frank, gratui- ty, gratuitous service, or discrimina- tion from any person or corporation holding or using any franchise, privi- lege or license granted by the city. But this prohibition shall not ex- tend to the furnishing of free transpor- tation to members of the police and fire departments while on duty. The charter shall contain appropriate provisions for the enforcement of this prohibition. The following proposition as offered by Mr. Snow (and amended from the December 26 750 1906 floor by Messrs. Rosenthal and Shepard) is still pending. Amend proposition 1, Section 16, Pub- lic Utilities, by adding the following: Provided that when the eity shall own and operate a public utility then and in such case the city shall keep separate accounts for each public utility, and that the income from each service shall be used solely for the benefit of that utility exactly as though it were an independent business enterprise; and reasonable sinking funds, requirements for improvements or extensions, the price of or charge for the service ren- dered or commodity furnished by such utility shall be lowered, to the end that the patrons of such utility shall direct- ly secure the greatest benefit of the city’s ownership thereof, and no such utility shall be so operated as to render its charge for service an indirect form of taxation. XVII. PARKS, BOULEVARDS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS. 1. The management of the parks and parkways and small parks, and of any forest preserve or outer belt park sys- tem shall be vested in a board of park commissioners consisting of nine mem- ber who shall be appointed by the mayor of the City of Chicago — three from the West Side, three from the South Side and three from the North Side; three for a term of two years, three for a term of four years, and three for a term of six years, their successors to be ap- pointed for a term of six years. Any vacancy which may occur shall be filled by appointment of the mayor, for the unexpired term. No appointment, how- ever, shall be acted upon until at a subsequent meeting of the City Coun- cil. The park commissioners shall be ap- pointed by the mayor, with the consent of two-thirds of the members of the City Council. The following paragraph was de- ferred, for consideration together with the subject of Revenue. 2. Taxes may be levied and bonds is- sued for park purposes by the City Council only upon the request of the park board; and park* funds shall be paid out only upon the order of the park board. XVIII. EDUCATION. I. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCA- TION. The City of Chicago shall constitute one school district. The public school system of the city shall be under the management and control of a depart- ment of education at the head of which there shall be a Board of Education, and no power by this charter vested in the Board of Education or in any officer of the department shall be exercised by the City Council except as by this char- ter otherwise provided. II. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION. The management of the public school system of the city shall be vested in a board of education of fifteen members to be appointed by the mayor, with the approval of a majority of the City Council. All nominations of members of Board of Education by the mayor shall lie over at least one week before action for confirmation or rejection thereon by the City Council. They shall serve for a term of four years, except that on the first appoint- ment of the board three members shall be chosen for one year, four for two years, four for three years, and four for four years, and annually thereafter members shall be appointed to suc- ceed those whose terms expire. The members of the Board of Educa- tion shall serve without compensation. To be eligible for appointment to the board a person shall be at least thirty years of age and a resident and citizen December 26 751 1906 of the United States and of the City of Chicago for at least five years im- mediately preceding the appointment. Section III, with amendments, has been re-referred to the Committee on RULES, PROCEDURE and GENERAL PLAN. The committee report will be found under “Resolutions.” III. SCHOOL PROPERTY. The charter shall re-enact in sub- stance the provisions of the existing law regarding the acquisition, tenure, and disposition of property for school purposes, but no real estate shall be leased for a term longer than five years, nor shall the terms of any existing lease be altered without the concurrence of the City Council. BY MR. B. A. ECKHART: Strike out all after the word “pur- poses, ” in the fifth line, and add “but no real estate shall be leased for a term longer than five years without the con- currence of the City Council, nor shall the terms of any lease be altered with- out such concurrence.” BY MR. EIDMANN: Amend by inserting after the word “years,” at the end of the sixth line, the following “unless with the concur- rence of the City Council by a three- fourths * vote.” BY MR. ROSENTHAL: Amend by inserting after the word “lease,” at the end of the seventh line, the following “the unexpired term of which is longer than five years.” IY. POWERS AND ADMINISTRA- TIVE DUTIES OF THE BOARD. In addition to the powers now vested in it by law, the board of education shall have power to establish as well as maintain schools of all grades and kinds, including normal schools, schools for defectives and delinquents, schools for the blind, the deaf and the crip- pled, schools or classes in manual train- ing, constructional and avocational teach- ing, domestic arts and physical culture, extension schools and lecture courses, and all other educational institutions and facilities. It shall have the power to co-operate with the juvenile court and to make ar- rangements with the public and other libraries and museums for the purpose of extending the privileges of the pub- lic library and museums to the attend- ants of schools and the public in the neighborhood of the schools. The board of education shall have the power to fix the school age of pupils, which in kindergartens shall not be under four years and in grade schools shall not be under six years. Action on Section V has been de- ferred pending the report of the special committee on revenue information. Y. REVENUE. The charter shall preserve the provi- sions of the present law regarding the levy and collection of taxes for school purposes, except that it shall not em- body the limitation of the power to support schools to the period of nine months of the year. The provisions of the present law re- garding the care and custody of school funds shall be re-enacted. The board of education shall have power by and with the concurrence of the City Council to issue bonds to raise money for purchasing school sites and for the erection of school buildings, and provision shall be made for the pay- ment of such bonds out of the school building tax. VI. EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF THE BOARD. Rules of the board of education shall be enacted or changed, money appro- priated or expended, salaries fixed or changed, courses of instruction and text* December 26 752 1906 books adopted or changed (subject to additional provisions hereinafter con- tained), only at regular meetings of the board of education, and by a vote of the majority of the full membership of the board of education, and upon such propositions, and upon all propositions requiring for their adoption at least a majority of all the members of the board, the ayes and nays be taken and recorded. VII. OFFICERS. The board of education shall annual- ly choose one of its members as presi- dent, and one as vice-president of the board. The board shall appoint as ex- ecutive officers a superintendent of education and a business manager, and may also appoint or provide for the ap- pointment of such other officers and employes as it may deem necessary, and shall, subject to the provisions of this charter prescribe their duties, compen- sations and terms of office, but the term of office. of the superintendent of educa- tion and of the business manager shall not be less than four years. And the salary of no officer shall be lowered dur- ing his term of office. The requirement that an officer of the city shall at the time of his appoint- ment be a resident of the city, shall not apply to the superintendent of education. The appointment and removal of the superintendent of education, business manager, attorney and auditor, shall not be subject to the civil service law, but they shall be removable only for cause, by a vote of not less than two-thirds of all the members of the board, upon written charges to be heard by the board on due notice to the officers charged therewith, but pending the hearing of the charges, such officers may by a two-thirds tote, be suspended by the board. The concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the board shall be re- quired to appoint the superintendent of education and the business manager. VIII. SUPERINTENDENT OF EDU- CATION. (1.) The superintendent of education shall have a seat in the Board of Educa* tion, but no vote. Appointments, promotions, and trans- fers of teachers, principals, assistant and district superintendents and other educational and attendance officers shall be made; and text books and spe- cifications for educational apparatus, shall be introduced only upon the rec- ommendation of the superintendent of education, with the approval of a majority of the Board of Education, or by the Board of Education by a two- thirds vote of all its members. Provided, That said text books or ap- paratus when once adopted shall not be changed within four years thereafter. IX. THE BUSINESS MANAGER. The business manager shall have the general care and supervision of the property and the business matters of the department of education. In matters affecting the general poli- cy of his administration he shall be subject to the direction of the board. Among the employes of the Board of Education shall be a trained architect and a trained engineer. X. APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS, ETC. (1.) Appointments and promotions of teachers shall be made for merit only, and after satisfactory service for a probationary period of three years, appointments of teachers and principals shall become permanent, sub- ject to removal for cause upon written charges, but the board need not retain in service more principals or teachers than in its judgment the needs of the schools require. December 26 753 1906 XI. COMPULSORY EDUCATION. The maximum age of compulsory school attendance shall be increased from fourteen to sixteen. But the children between the ages of fourteen years and sixteen shall not be required to attend school for such time during said years as they may be in good faith engaged in regular employment not less than five hours daily for not less than five days in each week. XII. PENSIONS. The Board of Education may, and with the co-operation and consent of the City Council, establish a permanent pen- sion system for teachers, principals and other employes of the Board of Educa- tion. It may be maintained in part from the public funds to be provided by the city, and in part by voluntary, fixed and proportionate contributions, to be retained from the salaries of teachers and principals. The pension system, as now administered, shall continue until the same is organized for administra- tion under and by virtue of the provi- sions hereof. XIII. REPORT AND EXAMINA- TION OF ACCOUNTS. The mayor shall, as often as yearly, and may as often as semi-annually ap- point certified public accountants, to ex- amine and audit the accounts of the Board of Education, and the report thereof, together with any recommenda- tion of such accountants, as to change in the business methods of the board, or of any of its departments, officers, or employes, shall be made to the mayor and to the Board of Education, and be spread upon the records of the latter. The expenses of such audit shall be paid by the board. The following resolution is still pend- ing: BY MR. RITTER: The charter shall provide that no po- lice station, fire engine house or patrol barn shall hereafter be built within 400 feet of any school building. XIX. LIBRARY. 1. The management of the public library shall be vested in a board of nine library directors, constituted as at present, and with the present powers and duties, except as herein otherwise provided. 2. The term of office of members of the library board shall be six years, three retiring every two years. 3. The library board may establish branch libraries and reading rooms, sub- ject to the approval of the City Coun- cil. XX. PENAL, CHARITABLE AND REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS. 1. The charter shall grant to the city, in addition to the powers which it has now: a. Authority to maintain alms- houses. b. Authority to maintain free lodg- ing houses, and free employment bu- reaus in connection therewith. c. Authority to maintain creches for infants. d. Authority to maintain training schools for dependent and indigent children. 2. The city shall have the power to contract with the county of Cook or otherwise provide for the detentions, housings and care of indigent persons, prisoners, or dependent or delinquent children. This section shall contain a clause that the City of Chicago can contract with the county of Cook for the erec- tion and maintenance of a Juvenile Court building. XXL INITIATIVE AND REFEREN- DUM. The charter shall provide that any or- dinance granting any franchise or the use of any street or alley or space below December 26 754 1906 as well as above the level of the sur- face of the streets, alleys and other public places for any public utility, shall not go into effect until sixty (60) days after the passage thereof, and if within that time twenty (20) per cent, of the voters of the city petition for the submission of such ordinance to popular vote at the next succeeding general or special election, such ordinance shall not go into effect until and unless at such election it shall have been ap- proved by a majority of the voters vot- ing upon the question. XXII. RELATION OF THE CHAR- TER TO OTHER LAWS, AND AMENDMENTS TO CHARTER. The following section has been re- ferred to the LAW COMMITTEE for an opinion as to its constitutionality. 1. Any act of the general assembly that shall be passed after the adoption of this charter relating to the govern- ment or the affairs of the cities of the state or of cities containing a stated number of inhabitants or over shall be construed as not applying to the City of Chicago. 2. The charter shall re-enact the pro- visions (not inconsistent with these res- olutions) of the existing laws applicable to the government of the City of Chi- cago, and shall vest in the City Council power to amend such of these provisions as the charter may specify. The following sections have been re- ferred to the LAW COMMITTEE for an opinion as to their constitutionality: 3. The City Council shall have power to amend any part of this charter with the approval of three-fifths of those voting at the proposed change at any election, provided that the tax rate established by this charter shall not be increased nor the twenty-year limit on franchise be altered [extended], nor the municipal court act amended, nor any provision be made for the exercise of any power not strictly local or munici- pal in its character. 4. The charter shall make provision for submission to popular vote of amendments to the charter, proposed by a petition of per cent, of the voters of the city, such proposed amendments to become part of the charter when ap- proved by a majority of the votes cast at the election (or: upon the question). Provided, that in this manner the tax rate established by this charter shall not be increased, nor the twenty-year limit on franchises be altered, nor the municipal court act amended, nor any provision be made for the exercise of any power not strictly local or munici- pal in its character. 5. Nothing in this act shall be con- strued to modify, impair or affect or to confer upon the City Council power to pass any ordinance modifying, impair- ing or conflicting with the provisions of Section 18 of an act entitled 1 ‘An act to provide for the annexation of cities, incorporated towns and villages or parts of same to cities, incorporated towns and villages’’ approved April 25th, 1889. December 26 755 1906 Resolutions offered from the floor of the Convention, but not acted upon. BY. MR. SHEPARD: Resolved, That in any act providing for the formation and disbursement of the police pension fund the following provision be incorporated: That the members of the police de- partment to be included in the bene- fits of such pension fund shall be as follows: The General Superintendent of Po- lice, Assistant General Superintendent of Police, Inspectors, Captains, Lieu- tenants, Sergeants, Patrolmen, Patrol Drivers, Superintendent of Horses, Su- perintendent of Construction, Superin- tendent Bureau of Identification, As- sistant Superintendent Bureau of Iden- tification, Secretary of the Police De- partment, Private Secretary to the Gen- eral Superintendent of Police, Police Custodian Stolen Property, Chief Clerk Secretary’s office, Clerk in Secretary’s office, Chief Clerk in Detective Bu- reau, Chief Operator, Assistant Chief Operator, Operators, Drillmaster, Chief Matron, Matrons, Feed Inspector, De- partment Printer, Vehicle Inspectors, Photographer, Assistant Photographer, Stenographers, Supply Drivers, Finger Print Expert and such other mem- bers as may hereafter be provided for by ordinance. BY MR. BENNETT: Resolved, that the present laws re- lating to firemen’s pensions be retained and included in the charter. BY MESSRS WERNO AND ROSEN- THAL: Chapter 7, section 1, alternative 1. In addition to all the legislative powers now conferred upon it by the general cities and villages act and the amendments thereof, the charter shall vest in the city council the power to regulate the legal observance of the weekly day of rest, commonly called Sunday; and the sale of liquors by bona fide athletic, charitable, edu- cational, fraternal, musical and social associations, corporations and societies at social gatherings, or entertainments conducted or held by them only; and in general all powers of local legisla- tion which may under the constitution be vegted in a municipality. BY MR. BROWN: Permission shall not be given to any person to retail any goods, fruit or vegetables from a wagon or other vehieh*. BY MR. SNOW: Amend proposition 1, Section 16, Pub- lic Utilities, by striking out all after the word “city” in line 11, and insert- ing in lieu thereof the following: “also to docks and wharves.” BY MR. LATHROP: Amend Section 1, of XVI, by adding the following words: Provided, However, that the city shall not have power to operate such public utility works by virtue of any- thing in this section contained. December 26 756 1906 BY MR. SHEDD: Resolved, That in cases where a po- lice officer, in the actual discharge of his duty, is charged with an offense, such as murder, manslaughter, or other serious charge, or charges, that the Common Council shall appropriate a sufficient fund for attorney’s fees to the end that such officer shall be prop- erly represented in court, and the truth of said allegations brought out. BY MR, VOPICKA: RESOLVED: That the City of Chi- cago be given power in condemnation proceedings to make the assessments for benefits payable in such number of annual installments as the City Coun- cil shall by ordinance determine, not to exceed twenty in number, and to issue bonds for the anticipation of such assessments payable out of the pro- ceeds of the collection thereof, and to sell such bonds at not less than par, for the creation of a special fund to be used in the payment of the awards for property taken or damaged through such condemnation proceedings. BY MR. VOPICKA: Resolved: That the City of Chicago shall have power to appropriate and set aside out of the moneys received through general taxation or from mis- cellaneous sources, as a special fund to be used only for the repair or re- pavement of such streets as have been paved by special assessment since July 1, 1901, and such streets as shall here- after be so paved. BY MR. VOPICKA: Resolved: That the City of Chicago shall have power to create a special fund to be used for the purpose of guaranteeing the prompt payment at maturity of all special assessment bonds of the City of Chicago issued since January 1, 1903. BY MR. VOPICKA: Resolved: That the City of Chicago shall have power to levy assessments for improvements according to the pres- ent Special Assessment law with the lollowing amendment: In cases where the amount of an assessment for widening or opening of a street or streets exceeds the sum of $500,000, then the assessment is to be divided in the following manner: 10 per cent, of the amount to be levied on the property facing the streets where the improvement is made and 90 per cent, of the assessment to be levied pro rata on all the real estate property in Chicago. Report of Committee on Rules, Pro- cedure and General Plan — B. A. Eck- hart, Chairman. CHICAGO CHARTER CONVENTION, Gentlemen: Your committee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan, to whom were referred the following res- olutions which were introduced for consideration at the meeting of Decem- ber 14th, 1906, XIII. PROPERTY. 2. The city may so acquire property outside of as well as within the city limits for any municipal purpose. Also an amendment offered by Mr. Shanahan: * * * that the city may acquire property by purchase outside as well as within the city limits for any mu- nicipal purpose, and not have the right to condemn outside property. Also an amendment offered by Mr. Brown: The city may acquire property out- side of the city, or purchase and con- demn property for municipal purposes within the city. Also an amendment offered by Mr. B. A. Eckhart: December 26 757 1906 The city may acquire property out- side as well as within the city limits, either by purchase or condemnation, for park and boulevard purposes. would respectfully report that the com- mittee has considered the subject-mat- ter, and recommends the adoption of the following: The city may acquire by purchase outside as well as within the city limits for any municipal purpose, and may acquire property outside of the city limits by purchase or condemnation for park, boulevard or forest preserve pur- poses. Respectfully submitted, B. A. ECKHART, Chairman. BY MR. PENDARVIS: Resolved, That the charter shall con- tain a provision preserving the integ- rity of prohibition districts established by ordinance of the city, and providing that the City Council shall have no power to modify or abolish any such prohibition district until the proposi- tion to so modify or abolish, any such district shall, upon a petition of not less than 20 per cent, of the legal voters then residing within any such district, be submitted to and be ap- proved by a majority of all the legal voters residing within such prohibition district. BY MR. SHEDD: Resolved, That the charter shall con- tain a provision that no employe of the city shall become or continue to remain a member of any society or organiza- tion, obedience or allegiance to whose rules, principles or practices shall re- quire or impose any express or implied obligation upon such employe to refrain from the full discharge of his duties or to do any act against the government of the city, or in violation of any ordi- nance or law, or of any rule or regula- tion of any department of the city, or of any -order of any official of the city or of any of its departments. For any violation of this provision an employe shall be at once discharged from the city service by the head of the de- partment in which he is employed. BY MR. WILKINS: Upon the adoption of this charter, the Board of Education shall prepare or cause to be prepared, a code of morals, non-sectarian in character and tenor, and put the same into book form, to be used as one of the text books of the publie schools and taught in all the branches of the same. BY MR, WILKINS: During the life of this charter and while it operates as the Constitution of the Municipality of Chicago, the children in the public schools shall not be segregated or separated in the rooms and classes on account of their nation- ality, race or color. BY MR. EIDMANN: Resolved, That no appointment by the mayor shall be made unless concurred in by the City Council at a subsequent meeting. BY MR. WERNO: Reconsider the vote by which para- graph 3, Section II, on page 593, pro- viding that “members of the Board of Education shall serve without compen- sation” was passed for the purpose of submitting the following as a substi- tute for said paragraph: Paragraph 3. Section II. The members of the Board of Educa- tion shall be paid such compensation as the City Council may by ordinance provide. REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURE AND GENERAL PLAN — B. A. Eckhart, Chair- man. Chicago Charter Convention: Gentlemen: — Your Committee on December 26 758 1906 Rules, Procedure and General Plan to whom were referred the following res- olutions and amendments: XVIII. EDUCATION. I. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCA- TION. The City of Chicago shall constitute one school district. The public school system of the city shall be under the management and control of a depart- ment of education at the head of which there shall be a Board of Education, and no power by this charter vested in the Board of Education or in any officer of the department shall be exercised by the City Council except as by this char- ter otherwise provided. II. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION. The management of the public school system of the city shall be vested in a board of education of fifteen members to be appointed by the mayor, with the approval of a majority of the City Council. All nominations of members of Board of Education by the mayor shall lie over at least one week before action for confirmation or rejection thereon by the City Council. would respectfully report that the com- mittee has considered the subject mat- ter, and recommends the adoption of the following: The charter shall re-enact in sub- stance the provisions of the existing law regarding the acquisition, tenure and disposition of property used, in- tended, acquired, held or sought to be disposed of, for school purposes or the use of schools, but no real estate shall be leased by said board, either as lessor or lessee, for a term longer than five years without the concurrence of the City Council, nor shall the provisions of any lease, now or hereafter made, whose unexpired term may exceed five years, be altered without such concur- rence. Respectfully submitted, B. A. ECKHART, Chairman. BY MR. BENNETT: Resolved, That the present pension laws relating to policemen be retained and included in the charter. BY MR. J. W. ECKHART: Resolved, That it is the sense of this Convention that the present pension law providing for a pension system of em- ployes of the Chicago Public Library be included in the proposed charter for the City of Chicago. The following resolution has been re- ferred to the LAW COMMITTEE with instructions to draft a provision em- bodying the sense of the resolution: BY MR. PATTERSON: The charter shall contain a provision extending the jurisdiction of the City of Chicago over those submerged lands up to the line of navigation which are not now under jurisdiction of the park boards. BY MR. McCORMICK: The mayor shall, as often as yearly, and may as often as semi-annually, ap- point certified public accountants, to ex- amine and audit the accounts of the city, and the report thereof, together with any recommendation of such ac- countants, as to change in the business methods of the city, or of any of its de- partments, officers, or employes, shall be made to the mayor and City Coun- cil, and be spread upon the records of the latter. The expenses of such audit shall be paid by the city. BY MR. ROSENTHAL: All appointments and removals of employes of the Board of Education, ex- cept as herein otherwise expressly pro- vided, shall be made pursuant to the provisions of the general civil service law. December 26 759 1906 BY MR. ROSENTHAL: The business manager shall with the concurrence of the Board of Education appoint a trained chief architect and a trained chief engineer, both of whom shall be in the business manager's department, and whose term of office shall be four (4) years, and whose ap- pointment and removal shall not be subject to the civil service law. SPECIAL ORDERS PARAGRAPH 3. — Suffrage (Thursday, December 27, 1906, at 2 o'clock p. m.) Resolution of Messrs. Werno and Rosenthal, concerning Sunday laws (to be taken up immediately after the disposition of the subject of Suffrage.) December 26 760 1906 RESOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO AMENDMENT OF STATE CONSTITUTION Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Illinois, the Senate concurring there: in That there shall be submitted to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection at the next election of members of the General Assem- bly, a proposition to amend the Constitution of this State as follows: Resolved, That Article IV of the Constitution of this State be amended by ading thereto a section to be numbered and known as Section 34, and reading as follows, to-wit: Section 34. The General Assembly shall have power, subject to the condi- tions and limitations hereinafter contained to pass any law (local, special or general) providing a scheme or charter of local municipal government for the territory now or hereafter embraced within the limits of the City of Chicago. The law or laws so passed may provide for consolidating (in whole or in part) in the municipal government of the City of Chicago, the powers now vested in the city, board of education, township, park and other local governments and authorities having jurisdiction confined to or within said territory, or any part thereof, and for the assumption by the City of Chicago of the debts and liabilities (in whole or in part) of the governments or corporate authorities whose functions within its territory shall be vested in said City of Chicago and mayf authorize said city in the event of its becoming liable for the indebtedness of two or more of the existing municipal corporations lying wholly within said City of Chicago, to become indebted to an amount (including its existing indebtedness and the indebtedness of all municipal corporations lying wholly within the limits of said city, and said city’s proportionate share of the indebtedness of said county and sanitary district which share shall be determined in such manner as the General Assembly shall prescribe) in its aggregate not exceeding five per centum of the full value of the taxable property within its limits as ascertained by the last assessment either for State or municipal purposes previous to the incurring of such indebtedness (but no new bonded indebtedness, other than for refunding purposes, shall be incurred until the proposition therefor shall be consented to by a majority of the legal voters of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special) ; and may provide for the assessment of property and the levy and collection of taxes within said city for corporate purposes in accordance with the principles of equality and uniformity prescribed by this Constitution; and may abolish all offices, the functions of which shall be otherwise provided for; and may provide for the annexation of territory to or disconnection of territory from said City of Chicago by the consent of a majority of the legal voters (voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special) of the said city and of a majority of the voters of such territory, voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special, and in case the General Assembly shall create municipal courts in the City of Chicago it may abolish the offices of Justices of the Peace, Police Magistrates and Constables in and for the territory within said city and may limit the jursidiction of Justices of the Peace in the territory of said County of Cook outside of said city to that territory, and in such case the jurisdiction and practice of said municipal courts shall be such as the General Assembly shall prescribe; and the December 26 761 1906 General Assembly may pass all laws which it may deem requisite to effectually provide a complete system of local municipal government in and for the City of Chicago. No law based upon this amendment to the Constitution, affecting the municipal government of the City of Chicago, shall take effect until such law shall be con- sented to by a majority of the legal voters of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special; and no local or special law based upon this amendment affecting specially any part of the City of Chicago shall take effect until consented to by a majority of the legal voters of such part of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special. Nothing in this section contained shall be construed to repeal, amend or affect Section Four (4) of Article XI of the Constitution of this State. Adopted by the House, April 22, 1903. Concurred in by the Senate, April 22, 1903. PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER THURSDAY, DECEMBER 27, 1906 (Ehiraiui (Chartrr (Hmuirution Convened, December 12, 1908 Headquarters 171 WASHINGTON STREET TELEPHONE MAIN 4877 Milton J. Foreman Chairman Alexander H. Revell, . Vice-Chairman M. L. McKinley Secretary Henry Barrett Chamberlin. asst Sec-v December 27 765 1906 PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Regular Meeting, Thursday, December 27, 1906 2:oo O’clock P. M., in the City Council Chamber OFFICIAL RECORD Published by authority of the Chicago Charter Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: The Convention will be in order, and the Secretary will call the roll. Present — Foreman, Chairman, and Badenoch, Baker, Beebe, Beilfuss, Ben- nett, Brown, Burke, Carey, Church, Cole, Crilly, Dever, Dixon, G. W., Dix- on, T. J., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Erickson, Guerin, Hill, Hoyne, Hunter, Kittleman, Linehan, MacMil- lan, McKinley, O’Donnell, Oehne, Owens, Pendarvis, Post, Powers, Ray- mer, Revell, Ritter, Rosenthal, Seth- ness, Shanahan, Shepard, Smulski, Swift, Taylor, Thompson, Vopicka, White, Wilkins, Zimmer — 47. Absent — Brosseau, Clettenberg, Eid- mann, Fisher, Fitzpatrick, Gansbergen, Graham, Haas, Harrison, Jones, Lath- rop, Lundberg, McCormick, McGoorty, Merriam, Paullin, Patterson, Rainey, Rinaker, Robins, Shedd, Snow, Sunny, Walker, Werno, Wilson, Young — 27. THE CHAIRMAN : Are there any corrections or amendments to the min- utes? If so, they will be handed to the Secretary in writing. MR. POST: Not a correction of the minutes; I suppose that is passed. I wish to call attention to Mr. Patter- son ’s resolution which was ordered to be referred to the Law Committee, and in order that the resolution might not get lost in the pigeon holes of the Law Committee, a motion was made and adopted making that a special or- der for this afternoon. Of course, I have no desire to press it for this afternoon, but I move that it be 'a special order following immediately after the last special order named in the list. THE CHAIRMAN: I will maintain its position. MR. POST: Do I understand that the motion was approved? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: The first spe- cial order to-day is printed on page 745. MR. ROSENTHAL: T suggest, Mr. December 27 766 Chairman, that we proceed with the two little matters on the educational program before we take that up, or at least that they be taken up. THE CHAIRMAN: They will be taken up and disposed of to-day, I hope. The first special order is printed on page 745, t'he lower right-hand cor- ner. The Secretary will read it. THE SECRETARY: Page 745, lower right-hand corner: “The Charter shall contain no provision conferring the right of suffrage on women.’’ • MR. COLE: I move to substitute “a” for “no.” MR. POST: The educational mat- ter was pending when we adjourned last night. What disposition has been made of that, I would like to ask? THE CHAIRMAN: Those two mat- ters introduced by Mr. Rosenthal? MR. POST: No, there is more than that; there is the property right, the leases and two or three other questions involved. THE CHAIRMAN: In the revenue question? MR. POST: I am not particular about the order, but I suggest — I un- derstood that the suffrage question was to follow immediately after the educa- tional matter has been finished. THE CHAIRMAN: Tbe Chair does not understand that anything in the educational section was left undisposed of excepting those things which were inter-related to the revenue question, and at a previous meeting of the Con- vention it was decided that they should wait until t'he special committee on revenue should have made its report. MR. POST: I did not understand that such disposition has been made of it. Now, Mr. Chairman, pardon me, allow me to remind you that during last evening a part of this very educa- tional question was taken up and was to have been voted on instanter; it was then ten o’clock and twenty minutes, and I asked that it be deferred, be- 1906 cause I wished to be heard upon it, and that was done when we adjourned. THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, yes, that is right. MR. POST: I do not desire to press the matter now. I did not understand it was finished. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair begs Mr. Post’s pardon. MR. POST: That is the matter that was presented by Mr. Eckhart last night and was about to be passed. THE CHAIRMAN: If it is the de- sire of the Convention to take this mat- ter up ahead of the special order, the Chair has no objection. MR. POST: I am not pressing it. I simply do not want it to get lost, that is all, and catch me when I do not happen to be here. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will see that it is taken up immediately after these matters are disposed of. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, do I understand, then, that we proceed with the special order? MR. COLE: I move to amend by substituting “a” for “no.” MR. POST: That motion is pending already, Mr. Chairman. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I rise to say that I already have an amend- ment which I think covers the point which Mr. Cole has in mind, and which I should like to have read. MR. COLE: Very well. THE CHAIRMAN: Has the Secre- tary the amendment? THE SECRETARY: No, sir. MR. WHITE: You remember, Mr. Chairman, that I moved to substitute “shall” for “no,” or some such words as “shall” for “no,” which simply changed it from a negative to a posi- tive proposition. That was properly presented to the Secretary at the proper time. However, if that propo- sition, Mr. Chairman, is not before the Convention, I am perfectly willing my- self to let the clause stand as it is, December 27 767 though I prefer to discuss a positive proposition rather than a negative one. THE CHAIRMAN: I think that is desirable, and Mr. Cole’s motion will bring that matter before the house. Mr. Cole moves to strike out the word “no” and insert the word “a, ” which would make it read: “The charter shall contain a provision,” and under that amendment the entire matter may be discussed. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cole moves to strike out the word “no” and in- sert the letter “a,” which would make it read: “The charter shall contain a provision,” etc., and it is upon that amendment, under that amendment, that the entire matter may be dis- cussed. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, what is the question now? What shape is it now? THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon Mr. Cole’s amendment, “That the charter shall contain a provision,” in- stead of. “The charter shall contain no provision,” and when a vote is taken, if the vote is, “That the charter shall contain a provision,” it will be an affirmative vote. The matter is before the house for its discussion, and whether it shall be changed from a neg- ative to an affirmative, which brings the whole matter before the house. Dr. White^ has the floor. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman and Gen- tlemen of the Convention: Trusting to the wisdom and the well-known phil- anthropy of this assembly, I really have no feeling in my mind but what this resolution will carry by a large ma- jority. T even venture to say, Mr. Chairman, that the arguments which will carry this proposition to a tri- umphal success, in my judgment, will not be made on the floor of this Con- vention, but that those arguments are already seated in small numbers in the gallery and in the corners of this as- sembly. To characterize woman, Mr. | 1906 Chairman, as an argument, I can read- ily see, in the eyes of those who are opposed to woman’s suffrage, may seem a little far fetched and altogether wrong. If I had characterized woman as a sentiment, as an intuition, as an ideal, such a statement or characteriza- tion would have met with instantaneous and very hearty response. But to characterize woman as an argument is another proposition, and yet, Mr. Chair- man, here is the crux of the whole mat- ter: It is simply because woman has become something more than a senti- ment, because she has become some- thing more than an intuitionist, be- cause she has become a reason and an argument that the women of Chicago come here with a request, not to say a demand, that she shall have the right of suffrage in all municipal matters. It is because woman is already a force in the civic affairs of this city, be- cause she is already burdened with im- mense responsibility, because she has become an argument in the growth of her reason and her situation in the civic affairs of this city, that we must consider this matter, Mr. Chairman, with great care and decide it only after due deliberation. I think we should remind ourselves of two things before we proceed to any minute or detailed discussion of this proposition: First, we must rid ourselves of any impression that the matter of municipal suffrage for women is an innovation, or that, if this con- vention should pass this proposition, that it will have done anything that is at all new. In fact, municipal suffrage for women is now so wide- spread and established a fact that one might almost be permitted to say that it has become one of the permanent institutions among the English speak- ing people of the world. I want to remind the gentlemen of this convention, if they are not already aware of the fact, that England, Cana- December 27 768 1906 da, the Province of Quebec, Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia and even Iceland have already granted in one form or another municipal suffrage to women.; and that here in oUr own country at least five of our states have already granted such a privilege to womanhood; Colorado, not only in mu- nicipal, but in state and federal mat- ters. And, secondly, I want to remind this Convention that we are dealing today with a question of municipal suffrage and not of state and federal suffrage. It may be that there are some who might be opposed to the suffrage of women in federal and state affairs who might, upon a careful consideration, be quite in favor of the right of women to vote in matters of municipal con- cern. The question of federal suffrage is not particularly in vogue; that, of course, is a great question in which the womanhood of Chicago are not im- mediately interested. Questions of tariff, questions of war, questions of international law and international dis- putes. I think the gentlemen who are preparing to vote yes or no on this proposition should keep carefully in mind that distinction. We are not here today asking for a state or federal suffrage for women, in which there is not so immediate a necessity, but for the right of franchise in all municipal affairs, in which she is most vitally interested. I want to call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that the women of Chicago are as vitally interested in all matters pertaining to the civic life of Chicago as the men of Chicago by any possibility can be. None of the great federal issues are involved in our immediate civic necessities. But the things we are struggling with here in this great municipality of our are propositions of great impor- tance which interest the women of Chi- cago quite as much as they interest the men. Questions of sanitation, ques- tions of juvenile reform and every moral question that you can name or think of are things which the women of this city are as vitally and more immediately interested in than are the men of this city. All questions of transportation, ques- tions of clean streets, questions of proper water supply; in fact, each and every question that touches the vital life of the great City of Chicago are matters in which the motnerhood and the womanhood of this city are more vitally, if that is possible, interested in than are the men of this city in the great questions of education. And secondly, I would remind you not only are the women of Chicago deeply and vitally interested in those questions, but all of womanhood in Chicago has become one of the most vitalizing directing forces in the solu- tion of all of those problems. They are simply asking now that, standing in this vital relationship in the interests of this great city, already engaged in almost every matter of practical re- form, that they shall have added to whatever powers they now possess, from the moral and social standpoint, the right of suffrage, the right indi- cating that they may stand side by side with man at the ballot box. Now, I wish to call your attention to one other thing, because while one might speak at great length and sim- plify and go into details and elaborate, I am sure in the presence of this Con- vention that is not at all necessary. I want to call your attention to the fact, in my judgment, that in just the degree you disfranchise from suffrage the women of Chicago in the new in- dustrial and commercial educations you are essentially, though you may not see it yet, violating one of the chief ele- ments of our American law and our American principles, in my opinion, the question of taxation without representa- December 27 769 1906 tion. Of course, at once the answer comes back that there are few women in this city who pay taxes; they will say that the married women of this city are represented in those matters by their husbands. If a number of women own property in their own right and pay taxes thereon, their number is comparatively small, and the great mass of the present disfranchised women of Chicago are not taxpayers at all. We are continually assured, Mr. Chairman, that this economic fallacy, that the owners of property will pay the taxes, that the people who own the property will pay the taxes — that the man who owns the house and lot pays the taxes, that the man who conducts a great business is the man that pays the taxes. Now, in my judgment, there never was a greater fallacy perpetuated in the niinds of the people than that. The fact is that the only taxes paid by the people of the City of Chicago, or any other city, is by the consuming public, and in the majority of instances the man who owns the property in reality pays no more taxes than is involved in his relationship or situation in the municipality as a consumer. We all know well enough that this whole question of taxation if it is on property adds to the rent; if it is on the things people consume it is added to the things the people consume, and, after all, it is not the property owner that is paying the taxes of the City of Chicago today; it is the consumer; and the great consuming masses, including these women, are just as certainly pay- ing the taxes, and more so, in my judg- ment, than the man who pays a thou- sand dollars or ten thousand dollars or twenty thousand dollars on holdings of real estate which in turn he takes from the man from whom he rents and from the man to whom he sells; and I say it is absolutely unfair, it is against the most fundamental principle of our American government, that the great consuming masses, and especially the consuming masses of women in this city who, since the industrial and commer- cial changes, have been thrown upon their resources, that they shall be taxed indirectly, covertly and secretly, and yet have absolutely nothing to say at the ballot box side by side with the men as to what disposition shall be made of the taxes which are wrung from them in this indirect way. Now, not to continue this argument, because others will want to pursue it, what are some of the arguments that are made against the granting of suf- frage to the womanhood of Chicago? It is urged, of course, on the one hand THE CHAIRMAN: Your time has expired. (Cries of “ Unanimous consent. ”) THE CHAIRMAN: Unanimous con- sent. MR. WHITE: Thank you, gentle- men. It is urged on the one hand that a woman is properly and suf- ficiently represented by her husband, if she is a married woman. Now, Mr. Chairman, there are very many things in this proposition that are wholly mat- ters of taste and of temperament that do not involve perhaps any mechanical consideration, and I want to submit to you, and I think the married gentle- men in this convention will entirely agree with me, that the time is entirely past when the average intelligent woman is satisfied to have the head of the household, namely, her husband, speaking on all occasions and every- where for her; because some of you gentlemen here who are engaged in maintaining homes of your own may have already foun,d, somewhat, per- haps, to your surprise, that the women of your household have some very de- cided and oftentimes antagonistic opin- ions to yours in regard to matters of public interest. They may not agree with you entire- December 27 770 1905 ly on the question of the solution of the traction problem, or the Juvenile Court problem for the reformation of juven- ile offenders. They may not agree with their husbands in a score of things, and yet in the vanity of an old tradition, which ought to have been exploded long ago, it is urged, and se- riously urged, or else I would not refer to it, that the woman is sufficiently represented when her husband acts and speaks for her at the ballot box. And you ought to remember further than that that there are many women in this city that are not married. You ought to remember that the class I have particularly in mind is the great and rapidly increasing class of laboring women who are absolutely thrown on their own resources. There are in the factories of Chicago alone not less than 400,000 women, some of them, to be sure, under twenty-one years of age, but they will reach the voting age in a very few years. One-twentieth of the population of Chicago consists of working women. That does not in- clude the women who are engaged in teaching; that does not include the do- mestic service of this city; that does not include the women who are em- ployed in the retail stores of this city, and where the number would mount to, if we had accurate statistics in regard to this, no man can say. And yet these women, thrown upon their own resources, facing all the dif- ficulties of earning their living in a great city like this, facing in the fac- tories the great question of factory san- itation and the great question of the safety in the manipulation and the handling of machinery, that very vital thing that touches no man, touches these 140,000 or 150,000 women, over one-twentieth of the entire population of Chicago, in a more vital way than it can possibly touch you or me, and yet there are men who are inclined to say that these women shall not have rep- resentatives. It is sufficient that the man is their representative, to speak for them. I say, Mr. Chairman, it is an injus- tice to the working women of Chicago, it is wrong and it is absolutely un- American. One or two other things, and I am done. It is urged, for instance, that if you grant a woman a franchise that she will not use it. Give her the right of suffrage and she will not appear at the polling place on election day. I want to say that that may be so, or that it may not be so; it has absolutely no bearing on the inherent right of women to vote if they so desire to vote, to protect their interests that are rapid- ly becoming personal in our new indus- trial and commercial conditions, if they so desire to do. And I might remind the voters of this convention, as I have sometimes reminded myself, that if that be true that womanhood if granted suffrage will not exercise it in any large numbers, I might say that if it is an argument against the enfran- chisement of womanhood it is an argu- ment also against the enfranchisement of the men. Look at the registration vote of the City of Chicago today, and there on any given municipal election count out the number of men who ac- tually go to the polls and cast their vote, even when great matters of in- terest are involved. It is said, for instance, if you let the woman vote, the good women of the city will not vote, the bad women will vote, and again I say, if that is an argument against the enfranchise- ment of woman it is an argument against the enfranchisement of man. In fact, so far as I can see, there is not one single argument that can be made against the right of woman to I enjoy suffrage in the municipal affairs j of the City of Chicago that would not | be just as powerful an argument I against the right of men to vote, and, December 27 771 1906 if you are willing to take the position that manhood suffrage ought to be re- stricted to the educated and to those who will exercise it, well and good; but if you stand by the general propo- sition of our present situation that men good and bad, whether they choose to vote, or whether they do not choose to vote, shall be enfranchised, then I con- tend that the women of Chicago ought to enjoy a similar right. And I believe that while there are many arguments, many more than I have even hinted at, in favor of grant- ing woman suffrage in the City of Chi- cago, I believe there is absolutely no sane argument against it except the ar- gument of sentiment which we have long since in the consideration of prac- tical affairs eliminated. I expect, Mr. Chairman, considering the makeup of this Convention, that this proposition will easily carry to the credit of this Convention and to the advantage of the womanhood of Chi- cago. THE CHAIRMAN: Any further dis- cussion upon this proposition? (Cries of “Roll call. ,J ) MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I think THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, while I was very much impressed with the very eloquent argument which we have just listened to by Dr. White, yet I believe that the considerations he advances, why we should extend suf- frage to women in the City of Chicago, are purely sentimental considerations and are not based on a careful survey of what the circumstances are with which we have to deal or cope in the City of Chicago, nor does it take into account the nature of the woman herself. This matter was very fully consid- ered in our Committee on Elections. We listened for several hours to the ar- guments there, and those arguments were chiefly in favor of woman suf- frage; before our committee only one woman appeared in opposition. It is true that many women who were op- posed to the suffrage were represented by a letter, which was read, but there was nothing said on the other side of the proposition. After the consideration of this mat- ter for several hours in that way we had a further meeting of our commit- tee, and at that meeting the matter was rather fully discussed by all the members of the committee, with the possible exception of Mr. Post, who said he would have something further to say on the floor of this convention, and from the notes he is making I sup- pose he is getting ready to say that at the present time. But after that rather full consideration, our commit- tee, with a vote of 6 to 4, voted against woman suffrage. I think we want to state at this time a few of the reasons that influenced some of the committee who voted against this proposition, and while I can ’t speak for anybody but myself in this regard, perhaps the same that moved me moved somebody else. The first thing that we want to take into account is that we are drafting a new charter for the City of Chicago in order to incorporate into that charter things that we know will be positive improvements upon the present method of administration. Now, what do we know here about woman suffrage? It is merely an ex- periment. It may have succeeded very well in Iceland or in other frigid climes that the doctor has mentioned, but that is no reason why it will succeed well in Chicago with a cosmopolitan population such as we have here. T am opposed until T am absolutely convinced that the experiment that we are going to make, or that the pro- vision which we are going to incorpo- rate in our charter, is a decided advan- December 27 772 1906 tage to the City of Chicago. I am op- posed to introducing in the charter of the City of Chicago, into the docu- ment with which we are to appear be- fore the legislature, anything which is purely experimental in its character. I think we are doing the City of Chicago a positive harm by going before the legislature and asking for anything of the sort. Now, if as a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, woman suffrage is a good thing for the City of Chicago, it un- questionably is a good thing for the State of Illinois; and this is a mat- ter in which the policy of the City of Chicago ought to be no different from the policy of any other city in the state. We have had a constitutional amendment in order to legislate spe- cially for the City of Chicago. That was granted on the assumption that the City of Chicago required things which other cities in the state did not require. Does that hold good with ref- erence to woman suffrage? I claim no. If woman suffrage is a good thing for the City of Chicago, it is a good thing for every other city in the State of Illinois, and there is no necessity for having special legislation with refer- ence to it for the City of Chicago. In other words, I say this is a matter of state policy and not of the policy of local municipal government, and ought properly to be left for the purpose of legislation for the whole state to the legislature of the state. We cannot grant absolute municipal suffrage here anyway. The women, if they were given the right to vote by the charter, would only have the right to vote for municipal offices; they could not, Mr. Chairman, for instance, vote on the validity or on the passage of any amendment of the charter, because the J constitutional amendment does not give ! them the right; so it would be only a ! partial suffrage from any point of ! view, and irrespective of the consider- | ation that in all elections, all purely municipal elections, they cannot , vote. We have at the present time the right granted to women to vote for school trustees, and to what extent do they exercise it? Only a very small fraction of the women vote. They say it is because the subject is not important enough. But I say that if the women really wanted the right to vote, if they really wanted to exercise the fran- chise, they would appear in greater number at the polls than they have done up to this day. And that brings me to the next thought, which is, that the majority of the women are not here appealing to them the right to vote. It is, after all, but a small minority of the women that want to exercise the franchise and want to be put in a dif- ferent position from that which they are in today. I have talked with great women, in- tellectual women, with some of the most cultured women, some of the most intelligent women that can be found in the City of Chicago, and I find a very large number of them, and a ma- jority of them, I am frank to say, I make bold to say, do not want the right to vote. I think woman is not suited constitutionally for mingling in political matters as political matters are conducted and are carried on at this date. I yield to no one in my admiration for woman, but I am more anxious pos- sibly than others are to preserve her tenderness, to preserve her goodness, to preserve her purity, to preserve with woman those feminine qualities which particularly appeal to men. I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, in a denatured woman, and I say that for some em- ployments woman is fitted, for some activities that woman at the present time is engaged in, tend more than ! anything else to denature a woman, ! make woman more mannish in her ways, | and to me they are different from the December 27 773 1906 sort of woman that naturally appeals to man. Now, Dr. White has said that women are vitally interested in all of these questions. Of course, they are vitally interested in them. Our children are vitally interested in these questions, but that does not mean that the chil- dren should have a right to vote. There is no great gulf between man and woman. Men and women live side by side in the family; their relations are practically a unit, and there is not that separation which the gentleman would have us think exists between men and women. Mr. Chairman, un- til a sufficient argument is advanced to show us that this would be a positive menace or injnry to the City of Chi- cago — and no argument other than a merely sentimental argument based up- on things which when fully considered are very easily brushed aside — I say no other argument than that has been ad- vanced up to this time, and therefore I rise to express my opposition to this motion. ME. VOPICKA: Mr. Chairman, if I could be positive that the politics and politicians would be reformed by put- ting that in this charter, then I would vote for woman suffrage; but because you have already reformers of that kind going on, some of them, I would have to take it into consideration be- fore I vote on this question. You heard me here, gentlemen, say that the lady should receive or have the right to vote for school trustees; I believe they are interested more in the suc- cess of our schools than we are inter- ested ourselves, but because the ques- tion was eliminated from the charter, because, according to your vote, the trustees should be appointed, I believe it would be better if the ladies were kept out of politics for a while, until the time will come when politics will be fewer. For that reason I vote against the proposition. ME. TAYLOE: I have an amend- ment to offer. THE CHAIRMAN: .Let the Secre- tary read it, please. ME. TAYLOE: I claim the right to speak a moment on it. THE CHAIEMAN: The Secretary will read Dr. Taylor’s amendment. THE SECEETAEY : “By Mr. Tay- lor: Eesolved, That a provision grant- ing municipal suffrage to women be drafted as a separate bill, and that it recommend to the legislature to sub- mit the said provision separately from the other provisions of the charter to the vote of the people.” ME. TAYLOE: I was informed by some members of the committee pre- sided over by Mr. Eosenthal, and of which I was also a member, that had the proposition come before that com- mittee in this form, such as the one spoken of here, one to be submitted separately from the charter and there- fore not to imperil the passage of that instrument through the legislature, or as proposed, more votes might have been registered in that committee for the granting of municipal suffrage to women. At any rate, it may separate the question sufficiently to allow many on this floor to vote for it who would not like to consider it as an integral part of the charter itself. I was a very attentive listener to the arguments presented before the Committee on Municipal Elections, and I must confess I failed to hear any real argument answering those that were submitted to that committee in favor of woman suffrage. The gentle- man who has spoken against the grant of suffrage, indeed, spoke to this ques- tion, but I for one failed to see that he answered a single point that was urged in favor of this proposition. His whole argument seems to center about the kind of a woman that appeals to man; but really that is not the question that is before this Convention. It is December 27 774 190j a question of justice, it is a question of the reputation of those who are near and dear to us* it is not a question of sentiment; it is a question of common honesty and of justice. Moreover, I would enter a plea in behalf of the family. The time was when family used to be the unit of the social order; but now families do not vote; families not only do not vote, but apparently, as families, have practical- ly no voice in the American institution, American politics. The family is bet- ter represented by the mother and the wife than by the man. All questions of municipal housekeeping and municipal administration are less nowadays a po- litical question than it is a question of city housekeeping. Clean streets, sanitation in homes, improved tene- ments fit to live in; giving a better place for the next child to be born in; surroundings which are to make for the betterment of manhood and woman- hood, in which you can grow up to higher manhood and womanhood. These are the matters in which a woman can vote not only as intelligently, but more intelligently, than most men. I lived for nearly thirteen years in the great cosmopolitan working peo- ple’s ward in this city, a great tene- ment house ward, and I wish to give as a witness to the capacity of the peo- ple of brawn and brain that ought to make any community proud of its in- dustrial army — I wish to give my wit- ness to the capacity of the working women of that ward, the housekeepers of the tenement houses, the women that have to grapple with the question of the disposal of garbage, of the clean- ing of the streets, of the giving of proper school accommodations, and all that sort of thing concerned in munic- ipal housekeeping, I wish to say they are not only as well qualified, but I believe most of them are better quali- fied to vote than are the husbands upon these subjects. If it were a question of voting that involved the bearing of arms, as it used to be, or as in many national is- sues— if it were a question of whether a woman must come to the defense of the nation, there might be a question upon which a fair challenge might be issued to this demand. But this is no such question. A city nowadays ought to be a feder- ation of families, of families with com- mon interests, living near each other, having great common concerns; of families mothers of which are the homekeepers and the homebuilders, and who ought to have something to say in regard to the surroundings of those homes and the conditions into which they are to bear the children and bring them up. I do not believe that we would find any embarrassment after the first two or three elections in granting this vote to women. I think they would come to it slowly; that they would be educated to it; that not the bad women would vote in any prepon- derance, but that the good women would cast a preponderating vote. And I appeal to the other cities and states in Great Britain, and in other foreign countries, and to many states of our own great commonwealth of states, to justify the hope, not only that no harm would come to this great municipality, but a great deal of good would come by granting women munic- ipal suffrage. I do not know whether this Conven- tion knows it or not, but you only have to travel, especially across the seas and in the eastern states — yes, and upon the Pacific, to learn that the first citi- zen of Chicago is a woman. I chal- lenge the disproof of that statement. The most widely known and the most widely respected citizen of this great city is not a man; it is a woman. More- over, I wish to say that the Chicago Woman ’s Club comes as near being the highest court of common council as any December 27 190.1 other organization that meets outside of this hall. That great body of in- telligent citizens of this city has grap- pled with as many of our City of Chi- cago problems, has offered as many sane and far-reaching and rational solutions of those problems as this City Council has itself. I, therefore, plead with this Conven- tion, at least to give the people per- mission to vote upon this subject as a separate question in referendum vote; and respectfully to recommend to the legislature that they submit the ques- tion of granting municipal suffrage to women separately upon the ballot which will he taken upon the other provisions of this charter. There can be no dan- ger in that. There can be no involve- ment on our own part. We will sim- ply give the people, the manhood of this city, the liberty to say whether they want the womanhood of Chicago to vote in municipal affairs. I hope Mr. Cole will accept this amendment. MR. COLE: Mr. Chairman, I was just about to rise to accept that amendment with the consent of my sec- onder. MR. POST: I object to the amend- ment being accepted and the matter being disposed of in that way. As far as T am concerned, I am perfectly will- ing to adopt that amendment — I beg pardon, Mr. Chairman? THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed. MR. POST: Mr. Chairman, my ob- jection is to the acceptance of it, and then I wish to ask Prof. Taylor if he won ’t offer that in such a manner as we can vote on the main question, and let his proposition come afterwards. MR. SHEPARD: I wish to suggest to I)r. Taylor that he withdraw his amendment for the time being, with the understanding that it be submitted im- mediately following the main propo- sition. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I am very willing indeed to accede to that request, but I wished to say what I have said, and at least give notice that this amendment W'as to follow, because I thought another vote would come on the main proposition if the members knew they would have a chance to vote on the amendment immediately after. MR. LINEHAN: Mr. Chairman, I feel pleased that that has been with- drawn. I believe after two or three weeks’ postponement of this matter it is only right and just that we should vote on it, and have a straight vote in this Convention, whatever we may do with it as a separate proposition after- wards. Now, I am not an advocate of mu- nicipal suffrage for women on univer- sal subjects; that is, I do not — it is not one of my hobbies. For years I have been in favor of it. For years I was in favor of the Australian ballot before if had been instituted in this city, and I had the honor to bring the first Aus- tralian ballot to this city from the city of Boston in 1889, and being pres- ent at the first election which took place for mayor. I have given some thought to the question of woman suffrage, and did not intend to speak here today. But I feel that the argument as brought forward has given reasons for voting in the negative, and as not sufficient, and should not be given any consideration in this convention. We are told as the three principal points: That this ques- tion is experimental, that is one; that we know nothing of woman suffrage, that it is experimental. We are also told that only a minority of the women in this city are demanding it, and we are told that it is ruinous to that pecu- liar tenderness and ladylike appearance, etc., that women ought to have all the time. Now, T want to nay this on these things, and T will be very short; I do not mean to take up much time. Minorities have made the mile mark of history, not majorities. Progress has December 27 776 1906 taken place only through minorities; majorities assuredly hamper them. As far as the experimental phase of it is concerned, if it is not started here, or somewhere, how can you have the ex- periment? What do we know about woman suffrage? is the question asked. What did we know about manhood suffrage when we threw the tea in Boston harbor? And that peculiar tenderness which we want to preserve to womanhood, why should we let the hoboes in the wards legislate for us? That is all I have to say. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon — Mr. Hoyne. MR. HOYNE: Mr. Chairman, I want to say just one word in this connec- tion. I thought that we were an Ameri- can city, that this was America. Un- til the last few years we thought that we were the best, and that we had the best government on earth. I am sur- prised to hear my distinguished friends, Dr. White and Dr. Taylor, continuous- ly referring to foreign countries for examples of what ours should be. Every foreign country on the face of the earth sends it scholars to this coun- try to learn our successful ways, and our ways of doing business; and for us to continually quote foreign countries for examples certainly does not suit me. I was born of a Virginia mother. I was taught, as all good mothers teach their sons, to bear respect for woman — high or low, Mr. Linehan, rich or poor; no matter what walk in life she may pursue. But I am opposed to taking woman from where she stands today, upon a high pedestal, above any woman on the face of this globe, and drag- ging her down to mix in the common ward politics going on in this country. I am opposed to bringing her to take part in these ward politics, and for that reason I may be obliged to vote against this proposition. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon Mr. Cole’s amendment to — oh, Mr. Hill. MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman, there is one point, it seems to me, that has not been discussed or brought out at the present time, and I desire very much to hear something said about it. Be- fore I was a voter I had been in favor of woman suffrage, and at the present moment I do not see any theoretical reason, or any reason theoretically why we should not adopt it in this enact- ment in reference to the City of Chi- cago, and until I came to the City of Chicago and mixed up more or less with politics I was clearly of that opinion. Now, we have discussed the proposition here at considerable length that it is desirable in municipal affairs to elim- inate as far as possible party politics; at least, that has been said in this Con- vention, and it is along that line I wish to get some light if I can. In the politics of this city I have found, and others of you have found, that in certain districts along the lake shore, for example, in the best residence dis- tricts, people of means, professional people and that class of people, kome of them who are supposed to belong to the upper classes — we find that among that class of people it is frequently very difficult to get the men out to vote. I have sent as many as five notes to get one man out to vote whose ancestors go away back to somewhere. It seems to me that these gentlemen fail to appreciate the advantage of our form of government, or they have been becoming so accustomed to it they do not appreciate the effort and sacrifice that was made by our ancestors to se- cure those advantages. Now, it occurs to me that if that is true of the men — and those of you who have had any- thing to do with politics know that it is — it may be true of their wives and sisters and mothers that they will not be more inclined to vote, or more en- December 27 777 1906 thusiastic than the men are. So far upon that proposition. On the other hand, you take the ward politician and the precinct captain, that class of men who are holding positions and earning their daily bread by rea- son of that political position, and who hold their position by reason of the fact that they control a number of votes in that precinct, and that as soon as they fail to control those votes that their position passes from them to somebody else who will get the place. Now, it seems to me that when an elec- tion comes up that precinct captain or ward politician will have his wife and sister and mother, and everybody else's wife and sister and mother that he can influence, and all his friends to bring out their wives in large numbers and vote at that election for his man — for the man whose party he represents and who he is working for. Now, it seems to me that on the one hand the higher class of women that we hope would vote, and which there is no reason un- der the sun that I can conceive of that they should be deprived of that priv- ilege, would be indifferent and not vote, while the other class, which is influenced by purely partisan politics, would come out in great numbers and vote. Now, that is the question I would like to hear discussed to some extent, and it has not been touched on today. I may be mistaken, and I hope I am. Another point that I am desirous of mentioning is along the line of Prof. Taylor's suggestion. In going down be- fore the legislature we want as far as possible to present a clean-cut propo- sition, and the members of the legisla- ture want to stand firmly for the rec- ommendations of this Convention. If it is possible to get what we want with- out creating any unnecessary oppo- sition, we would like to do that. After it has passed the legislature and comes before the people on a referendum vote I think we are all quite convinced that there are quite a number of men, quite a large class of possible voters, who might oppose this charter, just because of that proposition. And, on the other hand, the women cannot bring us any votes to offset that, because they are not voters until this charter is adopted. There again is a little dan- ger that I would like to see realized and discussed as soon as possible. Now, as I look upon it, the danger of party politics on the women voting in the country is not as great as it is in the city. Even if it obtains at all, the safest place is the country, where the women read a great deal, and where party politics are not strictly to the front as they are in the city, where organization is not so great. I believe if we can pass a measure through as part of this charter, it can be passed through the legislature into a state law, because we have got to secure some members down there, the same as if this were a state law. I would like to see it, as has been suggested, that this should be put up to the people on a straight vote. Now, I do not wish to be understood as being antagonistic to the women, be- cause I say it is a plain proposition and I am in favor of it theoretically. But in a great city like this I think it is a mistake. There are two or three measures put into the charter where it has been said that it is desirable to have the moral force of the Charter Convention to carry it through the legislature. Now, gentlemen, that is a mistake. Don't hitch anything onto this charter with the idea that its moral force will carry it, because every time you do that you are hitching clogs onto it, and we shall have to fight it in the legislature. If there are any such measures of difficult reform, for pity's sake put them separate, and put them through without imperiling the charter. Take away as far as possible those things which are going to create oppo- December 27 778 1905 sition and which we have got to safe- guard down there. Let us put up a clean-cut charter to the legislature and bring it down to the people. This is a separate measure which there is some question about. Let us put this through, if you desire, and let us do what we can in that direction and put it through as a separate proposition that will be voted upon by the people without im- periling the main fundamental propo- sitions of the charter. Now, I think that it would be wise to put it up to the people and secure a vote upon it. I do think, however, we stand as good a chance to put it through the State Legislature for the whole state as for the City of Chicago. I think you can do it as well for the whole state as for the City of Chicago; and I think if you tack it onto this charter that you will have opposition against its adoption and it would create foes to the charter, and votes against ,it; with no votes on the other side to offset it. I speak sincerely about this and against my convictions to a large extent. Properly I feel the ladies ought to have a chance to vote. I honestly feel we are making voters too fast. I think that is where our trouble comes in. People come from foreign countries and before they un- derstand our methods we make voters of them before they are qualified; and certainly our own women, born and bred and educated here, with all the feelings and the desires and the educa- tion that they have been recipients of are better qualified to vote than the large number of those foreigners. There is no doubt about that in my mind, and I would like to se them have the franchise in a proper way. But if we want to divorce municipal affairs from party politics, I do not believe you would accomplish it by giving women suffrage in municipal affairs. T do honestly think that the influence of the ladies that we seek to obtain will not be obtained; that they will not take interest in these affairs and come up and vote; and I do sincerely be- lieve, from my experience in ward poli- tics, that where a man holds a position by reason of his ability to obtain votes, that every one of the women he can influence will come out and vote. MR. BLkRKE: Roll call, please. MR. POST: Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt whatever of Mr. Hill ’s sincer- ity; it is perfectly obvious. But I wish to remind him and other members of this Convention on the last point that he raised, that the perils that this charter is going to encounter will not be con- fined to the legislature. If you separate these measures I am willing to vote for a separate bill rather than for no provision made for the suffrage of women munici- pally, but if you put this forward in a separate bill you will draw the interest of the women who take an interest in public affairs to that separate bill and away from this charter. Now, if you will consider what would have become of your constitutional amendment, under which we are assum- ing to act, if it had not been for the activity of the women of this city and of the rest of the state, you may draw some inference as to what may occur to your charter when you come before the people for its adoption with some of the provi- sions in it already and some which you are likely to put in it, which will have a tendency to create great hostility to it. I can conceive of no other thing that will give greater strength to your charter as you have drawn it and as you evidently intend to complete it, than to insert in the charter itself and not in a separate bill, a provision that your wom- en shall have municipal suffrage. You will get the full force of their support then. You will not get it if you sepa- rate the proposition from the charter. Now, Mr. President, after I listened to Mr. White, who properly took the lead- ership in this debate, I had no intention December 27 779 1906 of saying a word upon the merits of this question, for he presented the matter so ably and sanely as well as eloquently, that at that time certainly there was noihing left to be said, and if this Con- vention had come to a vote then I should not have troubled it with any remarks of my own. But Mr. Bosenthal has so graciously thrown down the challenge to me that I should feel that I was derelict if I did not accept that challenge and at least say a few words in reply. We did have this matter up before the committee, Mr. Chairman. My recol- h tion differs from Mr. Bosentlial ’s in some particulars, not vitally however. My recollection for one thing is that the vote was 4 to 5. My recollection also is that while I did say I would reserve what I might have to say upon this question until I came to the floor of the Convention, that the discussion was rath- er meek except on the part of the Chair- man of the committee, who was Mr. Bosenthal. Professor Taylor did make a very interesting confession of his con- version, and that this conversion had been accomplished by the appearance of the women who spoke before that com- mittee, and I felt that it would be un- necessary for me to say anything further upon this after the women who had ap- peared there had produced such splendid results; — results sufficient almost to change the attitude of the committee; results that I think would have changed the attitude of the committee but for the overwhelming influence of the chairman’s remarks. Now, Mr. Chairman, some of the points that have been made have been answered bv my colleagues here and T shall not attempt seriatim to answer what has been said. But one or two particular points T will refer to. One of these is the point that Mr. Bosenthal makes, that we would only be giving the women partial suffrage, anyhow. Well, T do not know but to an extent that would be true; we would only be giving them municipal suffrage, that is a fact, but half a loaf is better than no bread at all I think they would all say; and moreover, the question of municipal suffrage is, as Doctor White said, a distinct question from the ques- tion of general suffrage. I think a strong argument could be made for gen- eral suffrage on all grounds, but there are special arguments in favor of munici- pal suffrage. Mr. Chairman, we have had presented here, if I may sum them up, arguments that may be summed up in a general way that the woman’s place is in the home. We hear that argument phrased in that manner very often. I do not know that it has been so phrased here, but the sub- stance of the argument is present. Now I am perfectly willing to agree to the proposition that the place of the woman is the home; that her functions are in the home; that she should attend to the work of the home. I believe thor- oughly in the idea that there are mas- culine functions in this life and that there are feminine functions, and that the idea of a home tremendously expresses the feminine function and that the wom- an ’s place is there. But I do not agree to the narrow construction that some of our friends put upon that word home, and if they will reflect a moment I think they may come to agree with me that there is a larger home than the four w r alls that enclose the family, and that the woman ’s place is as much in that larger home as it is in the little home. When I leave here tonight, if I am talking to a friend, I may tell him that T am going home. I will mean, and he will understand me to mean that I am going up to that little flat on the North side where I monthly pay a rent which includes a tax, and my landlord taking that tax that I pay to him in twelve instalments, puts it away in his bank, and at the end of the fiscal year or at the beginning of it, he draws his check for a part of what I have paid him for taxes, and after that he passes in the December 27 780 1906 community as a tax payer and says that I am not a tax payer. Now when I say I am going home from here I mean I am going up there and you understand me so, and the wom- an’s place in my family is in that home. She is queen of that home, be it little or be it big. But, suppose I am in New York and I crowd into a friend at the station and he says, ‘ 1 Where are you going ?” I say, ‘ 1 1 am going home. ” Does he think of a little flat on the North side? Do I mean a little flat up on the North Side? I mean the City of Chicago and that is the picture that comes to his mind. I am going home to Chicago, and in that home, too, the wom- an should be a queen. A woman's func- tion is there, the feminine function is in the City of Chicago as truly as it is in the little homes that are scattered every- where. One is the housekeeping home in the smaller sense; the other is a house- keeping home in the larger sense. And I might carry the simile further; if I went to London and said, “ I am going home, ’ ’ my friends would under- stand that I did not mean the little flat on the North Side, nor should I mean either New York or Chicago; I should mean the United States and he would understand me to mean the United States. That is my home, and in that home, too, there is a feminine as well as a masculine function to perform and the woman should be the queen of that home also. But of that we need not dis- cuss?. The question here is whether she shall have a voice in the housekeeping of the larger home as distinguished from the mere household, in the slums, or on the Lake Shore Drive, or in the suburbs. Now, Mr. Chairman, we have not time here to go into details, but I can give you an instance of housekeeping in the municipality that came with great force to me on one occasion, when I passed through the State of Colorado. I stopped with others at a little city called Grand Junction. It is not a very large city, but it has all the evils of a big city, and among other things they were pro- vided with a water company, which was just as corrupt and just as pernicious as could ever be found in any large city, which did just as much towards corrupting politics, had just as much in- fluence in corrupting the politics of the City of Grand Junction as does the great public utilities that are corrupting poli- tics in our great city. They had woman suffrage in that state after a while, and the women of Grand Junction voted on public questions, and this is the result: That city had had its water furnished by this water company, and the water com- pany had been giving alkali water to the people to drink, and the men knew noth- ing about housekeeping, municipal house- keeping or any other kind, and it was the women that were interested on that side of the question. The women found that this company was plundering them and they urged their husbands to stop it, that they should vote against it, but somehow or other they did not vote for good water. Now as soon as the women had got to voting in that state they went into the matter with a will; they were not in with political gangs, as Mr. Hill imagines would be the case, but arm in arm with their husbands they went to the polls. The polls, by the way, were soon changed in appearance, too, and they went arm in arm with their hus- bands to good clean polling places, to vote there, and the very first thing they did was to vote that corrupt water power out of existence, and they had a munic- ipal water company there within two years with good clear water, coming from the mountain tops. That is a little illus- tration of what I think you could ex- pect throughout the municipalities. I don’t think there is any great objection to it except on the part of people who own stock and who are influenced by the stockholders in the great public utility corporations. We are told, Mr. President, that the women won’t vote if we give them the December 27 781 1906 power. Well, that is none of our busi- ness; and it is none of the business of the women who may refrain from voting. The question is whether women shall have the right to vote. If any woman, like any man, having a right to vote does dis- franchise herself, that is her right and privilege. Every man and every woman ought to have the right to disfranchise himself or herself if he or she chooses, and that is the only basis of disfran- chisement there should be. No one of mature mind has any right to disfranchise any one else of mature mind, but every- one has a right to disfranchise himself if he chooses. We are given as an illustration the fact that women do not vote in large numbers at our school elections. Well, we know that men do not vote in large numbers at our school elections; and if you had nothing to vote for in the last election, if you had nothing at the last election to vote for except upon the question of who should be something or other down in the university, I don ’t believe there would have been a very big vote anyhow. People vote when they are interested, and when they are intelli- gently interested on a subject. That is no argument whatever. But we get down to the argument now, Mr. President, of the denatured woman, the denatured wofnan. The men who have an idea that women would be denatured by voting are, I expect, the men who imagine that the particular relationship of man and woman may be illustrated by the tender vine clinging to the sturdy oak, and the man always imagines that he is the sturdy oak — which is sometimes a great stretch of imagination, I should say. THE CHAIRMAN: Has Mr. Post the unanimous consent of the Conven- tion to continue? (Cries of “Yes, yes. M ) MR. POST : That is an old argument ; it is a played out argument ; it is frayed all along the edges; it has not any good patches even on the holes ; it is an old an used-up argument, — the denatured woman. I am not so very old, not per- haps so old as I believe I am, although I may be a little older than I look, but yet I can remember the time when it was believed by men and by women — some women among women, perhaps — that it was denaturing to a woman to go to college, that it was denaturing to a woman to do anything except to go to a finishing school, a boarding school, where she might learn a little bit about the piano, a little bit about dancing, a little bit about French, and some other little things; but for a woman to take up and conduct any serious study that would qualify her to be useful in life, or for any other purpose than to act as a clinging vine to the sturdy oak, that was regarded as denaturing. Now is the time to let those arguments drop, as we can prove they are not well founded. Experiment? Why, we have been experi- menting all along the line of suffrage and everything else, as far as we have gone, it is nothing but experimentation. I will guarantee that no man who wants to limit suffrage will consent to limit it at any other point except just next to him- self on the downward side. I can imag- ine some men who are opposed to suffrage drawing the line at education and draw- ing the line at suffrage, but the line is one that will leave it on the right side of him. We have found by experience that the extension of suffrage has been benefi- cial to civilization, and now we are find- ing that it goes further. Of course, I have to cross the ocean for some of my illustrations, just as Doctor Taylor had to do. I am sorry, and I apologize for having to do that. I apologize to Mr. Hovno for being under that necessity; yet I point to the fact that Mr. Hoyne uses the English language when address- ing us, notwithstanding the fact he is opposed to everything that is not strictly American. On the other side, here is the point. It is simply this, Mr. Presi- dent, that we have been bragging so December 27 782 1906 much about the freedom of America so long that we have stood still and the people on the other side have been going ahead of us in all that relates to the real progress of democracy. You do not even have to go to the other side. Go to Canada, go to the Western states, and you will find that in those places. Are we going to lag behind until it is too late for us to take the lead in real progress? Experiment? Why, every- thing, almost, in this charter, is experi- ment. If we don ’t want to experiment, Mr. Chairman, simply reconsider all that you have done and re-enact the existing laws. Experiment all the way through, but what better experiment could there be than this, that shall turn over in effect to the people who ought to do the house- keeping for the City of Chicago, the power to do the housekeeping. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for taking so long a time, but I hope I may be par- doned for doing so after hearing the very eloquent speeches made here by the mem- bers of this Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secretary call the roll on Mr. Cole’s amendment to the proposition as printed. Mr. Cole ’s amendment is to strike out the word * ‘ no ’ ’ and insert the letter ‘ 1 a, ’ ’ so that the section will read : ‘ 1 The charter shall contain a provision for conferring the right of suffrage on women, ’ ’ and upon that the Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Badenoch, Brown, Cole, Dever, Dixon, G. W., Guerin, Kittleman, Line- han, MacMillan, McKinley, Owens, Pen- darvis, Revell, Ritter, Taylor, White, Wilkins. — 17. Nays — Baker, Beebe, Beilfuss, Ben- nett, Burke, Carey, Church, Crilly, Eck- hart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Erickson, Hill, Hoyne, Hunter, Oehne, Post, Pow- ers, Ravmer, Rosenthal, Sethness, Shan- ahan, Shepard, Smulski, Swift, Yopicka, Zimmer. — 26. (During roll call.) MR. B. A. ECKHART: I wish to explain my vote. I am in favor of Doctor Taylor’s substitute. The consti- tutional amendment was primarily adopt- ed for the purpose of enabling a consoli- dation, and for the purpose of raising the bonded indebtedness and to provide revenue, and to adopt such measures as might be found necessary in order to meet the growing wants of the city. I am, therefore, constrained to vote no upon this proposition, but with the hope that I may have the privilege of voting upon Doctor Taylor ’s substitute, so as to submit the question to the legislature in a separate bill, and that it may be voted upon as a separate measure, by the City of Chicago. THE CHAIRMAN: How does Mr. Eckhart vote? MR. ECKHART: I vote no. MR. POST : I wish to change my vote to no, for the purpose of moving a re- consideration. THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Post changes his vote to no. MR. POST: I vote no. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the mo- tion of Mr. Cole to substitute the letter <( a” for the word ‘ 1 no ” the yeas are 17 and the nays are 26, and the motion is lost. MR. MacMILLAN: I desire to in- troduce an amendment for the original proposition, if you please. THE CHAIRMAN: Let Mr. Mac- Millan’s amendment be read. THE SECRETARY: “By Mr. Mac- millan: That all women taxpayers, of good moral character, citizens of the City of Chicago, who possess all the quali- fications required of men to vote save that of sex, shall be entitled to vote for municipal officers and measures. ’ ’ MR. BURKE: I move to lay that on the table. MR. MacMILLAN: It will reach ex- actly the point suggested by Mr. Burke, if we take a direct vote on the matter ; let us have a direct vote on the matter. MR. TAYLOR: In view of the vote which has just been taken, a slightly different form for my amendment would place the matter more definitely before December 27 783 1906 the Convention as a distinct proposition, and I would like to have permission to turn in this revised form of my original amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: It occurs to the Chair that Mr. MacMillan’s question cov- ers the exact question that was voted upon just now. MR. MacMILLAN: I think not, Mr. Chairman, with due deference to the Chair; the proposition which has just been voted upon is a proposition which involves the question of women voting who would otherwise be qualified to under the law ; this proposition suggests, or is with particular reference to women who pay taxes, it does not cover the other proposition at all. It is an entirely dif- ferent proposition. I don ’t care to dis- cuss it, but I would like to have a vote on the matter. MR. CHURCH: I would like to have a vote taken on the amendment offered by Doctor Taylor. I think that the vote of some members on this matter just taken is not indicative of their position upon the proposition, not so much as it did show their belief that it should not be put into this charter. I do not believe that it is within the scope of this Con- vention, or the legislature acting upon the recommendation of this Convention, as far as the charter legislature is con- cerned, to embody a provision of this kind in our charter; and I do not think it is contained is this scheme for local municipal government which is granted to us under the amendment to the con- stitution. I believe it should be a sep- arate proposition. I think that the women should have the right to present their case to the legislature, but I believe it should come in a separate bill. I do not believe that the legislature can enact special legislation under this charter amendment to the City of Chicago grant- ing the privilege of franchise to a cer- tain class that is not general throughout the state. I think the constitution of the state prohibits that. I think that should be taken up in a separate bill. MR. COLE: A point of order: I made a motion there to change the origi- nal motion, and I afterwards offered to accept Doctor Taylor ’s motion, and then the matter was yielded with the under- standing that this would be taken up after Professor Taylor’s motion. THE CHAIRMAN: Everybody’s mo- tion will get a chance. MR. MacMILLAN: That is what we want; what we want to get. MR. SWIFT: I have listened with careful attention to all that has been said pro and con, and after giving all that has been said pro and con due con- sideration, it still is in my mind that this is a subject matter that ought not to have been brought before this Charter Convention. The fundamental idea in the calling together of this Convention was to prepare measures that might rem- edy the prime evils existing in the City of. Chicago. I doubt that anyone had in mind the subject of woman suffrage when this initial movement was taken up. I believe, sir, that if there is a crying demand for woman suffrage the initia- tive should be taken by the legislature, and that is where the application of the woman suffragists should go. I am one of those who do believe there is a home, not as the gentleman has eloquently said, the four walls that contain us and our families, but the environments of that home, the mother’s love, the sister’s love, the father’s love, and the re- spect and love of the children of that father and mother. That is what makes good citizenship. Now, then, it has been stated here repeatedly that this is not a sympathetic nor a sentimental question. Very well. Let us take it as a practical measure. If a mother cannot influence the son at home, if the wife cannot influence the husband at home, the father at home, if the sister cannot ’ influence the brother at home on the great questions that come up for the December 27 784 good or for the bad of this city, without the suffrage on the part of that sister or the wife or the mother, will the right of suffrage give them greater influence? Now, then, be practical. If the wife and the mother and the sister have this right of suffrage, and the same amount of in- fluence, none greater will be conferred upon them by the right of suffrage; the same amount of influence existing, what is the status of affairs? The question comes up and the father says this and mother says that, brother says this and sister takes that stand; wife says this and husband says that. Then, if you go on further, if there is no rupture in the household — and those who have dealt in politics know there very often are rup- tures — if there is no rupture in the household, what is the state of affairs? Father nullifies mother’s vote when they go to the polls; brother nullifies sister’s vote when they go to the polls. None of the votes are effective, and what do they gain? I certainly yield in respect to woman- hood to no man in this Convention, or outside of it, and when I vote no on this proposition, or did vote no on this prop- osition, I did it in the thorough belief in my heart that I was doing that which was for the best interests of womanhood ; and I believe that now is not the time — we may not be as progressive as they are in Europe, we may not have such progressive democracy in America as Pro- fessor Post has so eloquently depicted. Ah, I doubt it. "What brings the millions of emigrants to America every year? Be- cause of the progressiveness in democracy in America. Tell me that there is more progressiveness in Europe than in this country, and I repudiate the idea. Pau- perism, Czarism, abuse on every hand, and every person that comes here from a foreign country feels and knows of the abuse that is inflicted upon people in those countries, and they are the abused ones that flock to this country. It may be in time that our wives and our sisters and our mothers will be ready | 190CI to vote, but I do not believe that time has arrived. And it is with all due re- spect to the remarks that have been made here — I do not believe there should be any sort of criticism upon any state- ment made by any member of this Con- vention. We all stand equal. I respect and honor the position taken by any man if he believes in his heart that that position is true. THE CHAIRMAN: The first vote will be taken upon Professor Taylor ’s motion, after which Mr. MacMillan ’s mo- tion will be read. MR. MacMILLAN : I beg to suggest to the Chair that neither Mr. Cole nor Professor Taylor had any right to give way to the one or the other respecting the taking up of Professor Taylor ’s proposition ; Professor Taylor ’s proposi- tion was withdrawn without reference to its being immediately taken up. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair has no desire to force one ahead of the other; all of them will be heard. MR. MacMILLAN: That is correct. MR. B. A. ECKHART: I think Pro- fessor Taylor ’s proposition was tempo- rarily withdrawn until a direct vote should be had upon the other matter which is now before the house. I think Mr. MacMillan is in error in assuming it was withdrawn and that he has the right of way. MR. MacMILLAN : I do not pretend to have the right of way here at all, but I am simply saying this, that Professor Taylor’s proposition was withdrawn. In presenting my amendment, I believe my amendment is germane to the original proposition, and without any desire to push it to the front at all it seems to me that it is so distinct from either Pro- fessor Taylor’s proposition of Mr. Cole’s original motion that it ought to be taken up. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, therefore, let us take them up separately. MR. MacMILLAN: I would like to know what Professor Taylor’s proposi- December 27 785 tion is then, so that I may make an amendment to it. ME. TAYLOR: I do not object to having a vote taken on Mr. MacMillan ’s proposition now, I have no objection to thai. THE CHAIRMAN : Well, in order to secure perfect harmony we will take a vote on Mr. MacMillan’s proposition. MR. MacMILLAN: No, I will not press the matter now. THE CHAIRMAN: The vote will be taken upon Mr. MacMillan ’s proposition, and the Secretary will call the roll. MR. SWIFT : I believe a motion to lay upon the table is always in order; I move that that section with all the amendments thereto be laid upon the table. MR. MacMILLAN: As a matter of information, does that include Professor Taylor’s proposition? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir, and your proposition. MR. MacMILLAN: I don’t care so much about my own, as abojit his. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary call the roll upon Mr. Swift’s motion that the entire matter be laid upon the table. Yeas — Baker, Beebe, Beilfuss, Bennett, Burke, Carey, Crilly, Erickson, Hoyne, Hunter, Oehne, Powers, Raymer, Ritter, Rosenthal, Sethness, Shanahan, Shepard, Smulski, Swift, Yopicka, Zimmer — 22. Nays — Badenoch, Brown, Church, Cole, Dever, Dixon, G. W. ; Eckhart, B. A.; Ec.khart, J. W. ; Guerin, Hill, Kittleman, Linehan, MacMillan, McKinley, Owens, Pendarvis, Post, Revell, Taylor, White, Wilkins— 21. (During roll call.) MR. WILKINS: Mr. President, I be- lieve that this question should be settled here and now by this Convention and that the matter should not be thrown off to the legislature and that we should settle it and settle it so as to take care of Chi cago, allowing the good women to vote. It strikes me that if we will go to the saloons and the slums and take men out 1905 of there that do not work, who are al- ways engaged in holding up and robbing the country, and give them the right to vote, that we ought to give the Christian women the same power to vote and to have a voice in governing this grand city. THE CHAIRMAN : How do you vote, Mr. Wilkins? MR. WILKINS: I vote no. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon Mr. Swift’s motion that the entire subject matter lie upon the table, the yeas are 22 and the nays are 21, and the motion is car- ried. The Secretary will read the next special order. MR. POST : Mr. President, I give notice now' that I will move to take that motion from the table at the proper time. The Secretary read the resolution in- troduced by Messrs. Werno and Rosen- thal, appearing on page 755 of the print- ed proceedings. MR. BENNETT : Mr. Chairman, I de- sire to offer this amendment. MR. POST : Mr. Chairman, may I ask exactly where that is? My attention was distracted. THE SECRETARY: Page 755, up- per right Mind resolution. The Secretary read Mr. Bennett ’s amendment as hereinafter printed. MR. BENNETT : That portion of the amendment wdiich strikes out from the present resolution is put in for the rea- son that we have already decided to retain all the general laws except as specifically modified by this charter. The language stricken out would open up the entire question of home rule, and would wipe off all restrictions contained in all gen- eral laws. Therefore, I, in my amend- ment, seek to strike out that language. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, I hope you will not go until these questions are disposed of; we have only a short time to complete our w r ork. MR. BENNETT : The second proposi- tion is that of the manner of taking the vote. The purpose of that amendment December 27 786 1906 is to give direct expression by the vote of the people on this question untram- meled by any provisions of the charter, and a separate vote upon the charter un- trammeled by any provisions of this sec- tion. Unless this amendment is adopted the charter will be jeopardized as well as the other questions, and it seems to me that the two propositions should, as stated in the amendment, be voted upon separately, and I move the adoption of that amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon the adoption of Mr. Bennett ’s amendment. MR. ROSENTHAL: I would like to . be able to find some place where the whole section appears so »that we can have the whole section read as amended by Alderman Bennett. I feel that Al- derman Bennett ’s amendment ought to be adopted. THE CHAIRMAN: . Have you got it there, Mr. Chamberlin ? THE SECRETARY: Just a moment. Powers of the City Council in General, page 52. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read from page 52. THE SECRETARY; Jus*t a moment and I will read from the printed proceed- ings where they can all find it, page 746, Powers of the City Council. The Secretary read the section. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the ob- ject of having all this read? MR. SHANAHAN: I believe Mr. Rosenthal called for the reading of the entire section, and by that he meant the section as it appears on page 755. MR. HUNTER: That has already been read. MR. REVELL: Mr. Chairman, if you are through with that, I would like to ask Alderman Bennett a question : I want to ask if the effect of that amend- ment is to take this matter out of the charter entirely? MR. BENNETT: Let me say— MR. REVELL: And also, if it is passed upon favorably at the election, will it find a place in the charter? THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question on this amendment? MR. BENNETT : May I answer the question ? MR. REVELL: I w r ould like to have an answer to that question. THE CHAIRMAN: I beg pardon, I thought you had answered it. MR. BENNETT: I did not answer the question. The question of whether this will be in the charter or in an independ- ent bill depends entirely on the form which the charter shall finally take when it leaves this Convention. If the charter is drawn as one complete bill, then this would be incorporated in the charter, but it would not be adopted except on the affirmative vote of the people of Chicago. In other words, the adoption of this provision, whether in the form of a com- plete charter, or as a bill, would depend on the referendum vote. That vote would be separate from the vote on the charter, but taken at the time the charter vote is taken. MR. REVELL: Well, Mr. Chairman, I believe that is a matter that will ef- fect — THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Revell. MR. REVELL: I believe that this amendment of Alderman Bennett will ef- fect the proposition so that it will not find a place in the charter, and I, there- fore, feel that this is the time when, if there is to be any discussion on this matter, it should be had in order that the Convention may shape its course from start to finish. And w T ith that duty in mind, I desire to ask the indulgence of this Convention if I shall read some notes I have on this matter — this matter and the one other matter which is to come up later in the week I consider more im- portant for the work of this Convention and for the people of the City of Chicago than any other. I do not wish to be mis- understood. I wish to say what I intend to say, but I do not wish to trust myself December 27 787 1906 to extemporizing or to memorizing. I, therefore, ask the indulgence of this Con- vention while I read what I have to say. MR. REVELL: Ever since the foun- dations of the city were laid the more drastic laws — laws which seek to con- trol the individual in his personal hab- its — have not been effectively enforced. Some of them have not been enforced at all. That they have not been en- forced has been due to the character of the law, for legislation may exceed the reasonable possibilities of regulation by law. But, I do not wish to be under- stood as saying that any law, once en- acted and being upon the statute books, should not be enforced. I am simply expressing the belief that any law which is not acceptable to a majority of the community, upon which it is de- signed to act, is not likely to be en- forced. The reason for such non-en- forcement is plain and simple. It is due to the fact that a majority of voters will not elect men to office who will enforce laws which are objection- able to such majority. I am speaking now more especially of large cities — not small ones. The personal habits of many are nearer and dearer to them than really far-reaching questions of statecraft. Even with voting majorities it will be difficult to change the individual hab- its of men. And, I am not, and never will be, convinced that the iron hand of the law should be laid upon the in- dividual to regulate him. Law is not designed to protect a man against him- self. Its purpose is to protect the weak against the strong; to establish and maintain justice; to preserve or- der. Government overreaches itself when it undertakes to establish what men shall, or shall not eat and drink, and when they shall eat and drink, or what they shall wear, or in what fash- ion. The only extent to which law may properly go in regulating such things is to prescribe that in doing them the individual must be orderly, and to punish him if he is disorderly. Sunday was not designed to be a fast day any more in drinking than in eating. Primarily, it was designed as a day of rest. And “rest ’ ’ means ab- stinence from customary labors. For the closely housed clerk or me- chanic, rest means outdoor diversion in the sun and air. For the man who works outdoors all week, rest means the quietude of home, the church, reading, and intellectual occupation. Sunday should permit' a man to avoid becom- ing all one thing or another. It should amplify and round out his existence and character. He should use it to the best advantage to restore and main- tain his proper physical and intellectual equilibrium. It goes without saying that Sunday should not be abused. The rest and di- version should be real and beneficial. A Sunday spent in weakening de- bauchery, in over-exertion, or other per- version, is worse than no Sunday at all for the man who thus misuses it. And, too, in availing hijnself of Sunday the man should see to it that his method of recreation is reasonable, and not such that it interferes with some other man ’s peace and comfort. It would not be right to' maintain a noisy diversion about a church, especially as the church cannot be moved and the diversion can be carried on somewhere else. Need I call attention to the fact that if this reasonable rule be applied in one way, it is also worthy of application when con- ditions are reversed. The church can- not go too far beyond its own jurisdic- tion to regulate the acts of others. Another thing: As I have already said, Sunday is designedly a day of rest. This is something more than a moral provision. It is wisely hygienic. There is no need for general industry on Sunday. It is desirable that men should rest. It is fortunate for the world that the wisdom of the past December 27 788 1906 stamped upon the conventions of the world the practice of keeping the seventh day free from all unnecessary labor. I approve earnestly of all laws which tend to establish the restfulness of Sunday. Sunday as a day of rest is fixed firm and fast; it is a part of our system of living. No one that I ever heard of proposed to abolish Sunday; no one de- sired to pervert it to a working day. The only difference which exists is to how it shall be enjoyed. Shall it be left to the individual to devise his own methods of enjoyment in diversion? Shall the majority of a community de- cide how that community will regulate its Sunday? Is it reasonable to propose that remote portions of the state, with a scattered agricultural population shall enact laws and compel city populations to observe them? The cities of Illinois will soon have a majority of the State Legislature. Are the rural communi- ties of the state ready to accept that the majority of the state shall dictate to the inhabitants of all portions of the state how Sunday shall be regulated, or what shall be the method of living on week days? Is the country ready to have the cities say that it — the coun- try — must keep open saloons on Sun- day? That the farmer boy may not hunt? Or, that they must not work on Saturday afternoons, or otherwise in- terfere with their domestic practices? Freedom of conscience is one of the principles of our government; and “freedom of conscience” means noth- ing more than do as one pleases. As I have already said, the only restraint upon such freedom of action is that the citizen must not do anything which in- terferes with the rights of others. If he is disorderly, he should be dealt with as an individual. It would be contrary to reason to say that because some men abuse the use of horses, or automobiles, or the streets, or the bathing places, that these things should be abolished in toto. Nobody talks about abolishing the railroads, because in some respects they have not been properly con- ducted. We now come to the enforcement of Sunday closing laws which are already on the statute books. It is not neces- sary for me to proffer proof to show that the enforcement of Sunday closing laws in crowded cities is all but im- practicable. As I have indicated, of course, I will admit that any law can be enforced if outside power is invoked to do it. Let me diverge for just a moment and say that a week or two ago I was in New York. It was said in opposi- tion to my idea that the law was en- forced in New York. I was in New York about two weeks ago and on a Sunday afternoon, about 5 o’clock, I went into a saloon there and called for a drink. I was told to go through a certain room where others were eating and drinking; where there were little sandwiches; I ordered a drink and I was requested to sit down at a table and the drink came to me and with it a little sandwich, as large as my thumb. I looked at it, and that was as much as I desired to do with it, for it looked as though it had been doing duty all day long; or, probably all the week long. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will assume that Mr. Revell has the unani- mous consent of this Convention to pro- ceed. (Cries of “Agreed.”) MR. REYELL: I got the drink and left the sandwich alone. I did not leave the drink entirely alone. I found that pretty fairly good; but the same price was charged me for that drink I had obtained as would have been on any day of the week. I was telling a barber of this the next day, and he said: “Well, I can tell you a story of what goes on where 1 usually go on Sunday.” I said: December 27 789 “Go ahead.” He said: “Only a few weeks ago I went into my place and ordered a drink and they brought me a little sandwich; and upon examining the sandwich — because we never thought of eating one — 1 found that the Swiss cheese was celluloid.” He said: “It is a very common thing when the barkeeper asks what kind of a sand- wich is wanted to say, ‘I want a can- vas back,’ and to put the whole thing back again.” Now, I maintain that laws which are enforced in that way are far worse than meeting this question and of knowing where we stand — of the citi- zens of the city knowing where they stand on the question in an open way. So much for the enforcement in New York, and I understand it is exactly the same way in St. Louis. Much is said about Sunday closing in St. Louis, but it should not be lost sight of that the whole power of the state is thereby invoked to close the sa- loons. Left to itself, St. Louis would not enforce the state law upon itself. The reason for this is obvious. The law-making power would not be the same as the law-enforcing power. I do not understand that Chicago desires the Legislature of the State of Illinois to put the police force of Chicago un- der the governor to enforce Sunday closing laws, as is the case in Missouri. We are striving for home rule, and not for metropolitan systems. The Sun- day closed saloons in many cities, es- pecially New York, is a farce. It may be that the attempt to main- tain laws which interfere with the so- cial customs of voters in large cities will invite conditions which are far worse than those which they undertake to remedy. Voters who oppose the en- forcement of Sunday laws are likely : to unite and elect men who will refrain from enforcing, not only the Sunday laws, but other unpopular laws. The net result will be a mayor and other 1905 | officials who will loosely turn the city over to crime and disorder. Unpopu- lar sumptuary laws tend to invite the non-enforcement of unquestionably proper laws. Too much law breaks down the rule of law. I am in favor of enforcing every law which exists upon the statute books of the State of Illinois. No one who is a law-abiding citizen can feel otherwise about this proposition. If it became necessary for me to vote upon the ques- tion whether all laws should be en- forced or not enforced, I would certain- ly feel compelled to vote for enforce- ment. But in doing this I would be actuated by the general desire to dig- nify the law— as matter of consistent government administration. My vot- ing in that way would not signify that every law on the statute books met with my hearty approval. For the very rea- son that I would vote for the enforce- ment of all laws I would be reluctant to' witness an attempt at a rigid en- forcement of the Sunday closing law. My reluctance would grow out of the fact that I know that an attempt to enforce the Sunday closing law would be more or less unsuccessful. The net result would be the spectacle of an un- enforcible law— a failure of law. If the people of this city be given a chance to vote upon this question, they will vote overwhelmingly in favor of Sunday saloons, but this does not mean that they would vote for disorderly Sunday saloons, or disorderly week day saloons. They would say that a saloon which is not fit to open on Sunday should not be open on that day nor any other day. The effect of this would be to eliminate saloons which harbor criminals and which are disre- gardful of proprieties in allowing wom- en and children to frequent them in a manner which is not respectable. The state law, as I have indicated, requires that saloons must be closed everywhere in the state on Sunday. December 27 790 1906 But, the people of Illinois, by adopting the charter amendment, voted to amend the state constitution, so that it could have home rule, if it wished it. The people have thus recognized that re- quirements are different in the rural and urban portions of the state, and that this difference should find expres- sion in different laws. They have in- dicated that a peaceful and quiet rural community on Rock River shall not compel the people of Chicago to live according to country methods, no mat- ter how good such methods may be when applied to country life. But this should not be taken to mean that the test of crime should not be the same everywhere in the state. We are now preparing a new home rule city charter to be voted on by the people. This ought to embrace the problem of saloon regulation. If this be done, then the people of Chicago can decide whether they want Sunday sa- loons or not. And, it is the people’s right, in a land of popular government, to have such laws as they desire. The whole Sunday closing question should be settled in the new charter. Reasonable people, among them those who oppose Sunday saloons, undoubt- edly see that the elimination of the sa- loon issue will make it more easily pos- sible to contest 'city elections upon material issues and not upon issues of sentiment and religious discipline. So far as the general public welfare is concerned, there has been no advan- tage gained in the past two generations from the Sunday closing law. Let us see if we cannot obtain more benefi- cent results for all the people under a new plan. It must be accepted that we can trust the people of Chicago in this as well as in other things. We cannot go before the world with the announcement that the people of Chi- cago cannot be trusted to govern them- selves. Such a policy and such a dec- laration would invite disaster and con- tempt. Restrictions by law wherein no crime is intended and wherein the peo- ple will not be confined, will serve to injure Chicago, not in one way, but in many. And now, I hold, Mr. Chairman, that if Mr. Bennett ’s amendment is in- tended to take this matter out of the charter and if it shall not find a place in the charter then it ought to be de- feated. MR. SHANAHAN: Mr. Chairman, I am heartily in favor of the amendment as offered by Alderman Bennett for this reason, that if Alderman Bennett’s mo- tion prevails it will mean that this question will be submitted as a sep- arate question to the citizens and to the voters of the City of Chicago, to decide whether they want an open Sun- day or a closed Sunday. I think it is a great mistake to have this question put in the general charter. It will bring on a great fight in the City of Chicago, and if put in the general char- ter it will mean that every person who is opposed to an open Sunday will op- pose the entire charter. It will mean that every person who wants an open Sunday will oppose the entire charter, whereas, if it is submitted as a sep- arate proposition as the municipal court proposition was submitted, the people can vote direct upon it. The man who wants an open Sunday will vote for it. The man who wants a closed Sunday can vote against it and both of those men can vote for the general charter proposition. I hope that Mr. Bennett’s amendment will prevail. MR. DEVER: Mr. Chairman, I am not very clear just at this time as to what the status of the whole subject is. For instance, I would like to in- quire whether, if the paragraph is adopted with the amendment proposed by Alderman Bennett, whether the mat- ter involved in the amendment and in the paragraph will become a part of the charter itself, will be written in December 27 791 1906 the body of the charter and then be voted on as a separate proposition, and whether the legislature will be in- structed or asked to frame a separate bill dealing with that subject matter and asking the people of this city to vote upon it as a separate matter to be afterwards enacted into law? THE CHAIRMAN: Alderman Ben- net will answer the question. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I ask to have the amendment read again. MR. DEYER: It is highly confusing here to understand just what it means by reading it and I would like to have the sponsors for it explain to us what they believe it means. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary read the amendment and then Al- derman Bennett can explain it. The Secretary re-read Mr. Bennett’s amendment. MR. DEVER: Mr. Chairman, as a matter of information I would like to make the inquiry, and while I think the reading of it clears it up a little, I am still somewhat in doubt as to an- other matter and that is this: Whether it is legally possible to submit a char- ter as one general law to the people of Chicago, and then give the people of Chicago the power to adopt one por- tion of that charter and then reject an- other, so that the. people themselves may have the right to take such part of the charter as may please them and reject the rest. MR. SHANAHAN: Mr. Chairman— THE CHAIRMAN: One moment, Alderman Dever has the floor. MR. SHANAHAN: Mr. Chairman, I believe I can answer that. At the elec- tion in 1905, the fall of 1905, two char- ter questions were submitted to the voters of the City of Chicago, one being the Municipal Court Act, the other changing the term of mayor from two years to four years. MR. DEVER: Were they not sep- arate laws, separate enactments? MR. SHANAHAN: The same as this will be a separate enactment. MR. DEVER: That is exactly what I want to get at. Are we going to have them separate enactments or are the people to have the right to take a part of the charter and then reject the rest? MR. SHANAHAN: I take it they will be separate propositions. We can divide this charter into one, two, five or ten separate parts I think for sub- mission so that they can be voted upon as a whole or separate,* and I take it that Alderman Bennett’s proposition that this question of an open or a closed Sunday would be submitted as a separate proposition. MR. DEVER: Separate in writing to the legislature? MR. SHANAHAN: Separate in writing. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, at the time this resolution was intro- duced bv me I was not particularly familiar with it, because it was intro- duced by me on request. I have since that time examined it with some care and I think it is a resolution that ought to be adopted by this Convention, and for this reason: because if there is any question about local self-government, or if there is any question which prop- erly comes within the question of local self-government, this is certainly one, and it ought to be carried to that ex- tent that if we are to' have prohibition districts in a particular territory, even in the City of Chicago, we can have such prohibition districts. In other words, this is distinctly and essentially upon which the neighbor- hood ought to control and which the neighborhood ought to dictate what should be done in a particular locality, even in the City of Chicago. As far as the amendment of Ahler- | man Bennett is concerned, it seems to December 27 792 1906 me it ought to be adopted, and I do not think it will be necessary to have a separate vote on that amendment. So far as I am concerned I would be per- fectly willing to have introduced this resolution, to accept the amendment of Alderman Bennett. I want to call the attention of this Convention to another matter MR. REYELL: Right here, Mr. Chairman, may I ask the gentleman a question? THE CHAIRMAN: It is up to the gentleman if he will yield to a ques- tion. MR. ROSENTHAL: I will yield to Mr. Revell. MR. REYELL: I would like to have you state, Mr. Rosenthal, if this is passed unfavorably by the people, un- der the amendment of Alderman Ben- nett, will it then find a place in the charter? If so, I am willing to accept it. MR. ROSENTHAL: I understand Alderman Bennett’s proposition to be this, that either in one general act or in separate acts we can provide for the submission of this matter to the people; and I go even farther than Mr. Shan- ahan, who spoke before, I believe, that an act itself can make provision for the submission of a particular section of that act separately to the vote of the people, and so it might be incorporated in the general charter. I think another thing ought to be made clear if we carry this particular resolution as introduced. We are not voting here in favor of an open Sun- day or a closed Sunday; all we are voting for is that the matter is to be left to this community and left to this community through its council or through the people in general, and that is a thing that is distinctly desirable. There is, however, and I want to re- fer to it now, because it is pertinent to this matter, one section of this that we ought to amend. I am referring now to page 746. I understand that we have adopted the first section of chap- ter 7, on the -powers of the City Coun- cil. I understand that this particular resolution in the form in which it is drafted is an addition to this section, that is, it would properly find its place after Section 1. That is correct, is it not? I want to know whether I am correct. THE CHAIRMAN: Let us dispose of this question first. MR. ROSENTHAL: It makes a dif- ference in voting on this. Well, I will follow the Chairman ’s suggestion and bring it up later. THE CHAIRMAN : Let us dispose of the pending question. MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize the remarks made by Mr. Shanahan. It seems to me clear that by putting this into this charter with- out an opportunity of a separate vote upon it, we are imperiling the adoption of the charter on the referendum vote of the City of Chicago more than we are by any other provision in it. Now, it is better understood, I think, not- withstanding Mr. Rosenthal’s remarks that it has come down practically on this question to an open Sunday or a closed Sunday. We have in the City of Chicago, at the present time, I think, a great cosmopolitan community that would not favor the extreme in either case; either blue laws or the wide open city of the mining camps. I think the majority of the people probably favor a middle course, a con- servative course, and if we put this in and it is understood that it is a direct question upon that question of an open Sunday, whichever way we go, we are going to array a great mass of people who are sincere in their views upon this question, who may vote against the charter simply for that reason. Now, I do not think we ought to go to all the labor that we have gone to in this Convention, to all the work we December 27 793 1905 must necessarily put upon this in the legislature, to all the work we must put upon it when it comes to the refer- endum vote and have it practically de- pending on this one question. I think Alderman Bennett’s motion ought to prevail and give the people of the City of Chicago a chance to vote upon this question alone, by itself. I do not understand that this is the final act of the charter. My under- standing is that in this session of the legislature, or at any future one, should it become necessary to amend the charter, it may be done by being passed by the legislature and sub- mitted to a referendum vote of the City of Chicago; and I think we are bound up to the crucial point as to whether or not the referendum vote in the City of Chicago will adopt this char- ter as we pass it up, or whether our work shall all be wasted and go for nothing, and I do think that it ought to be put into a separate amendment and give the people a chance to vote on it directly that we may get the pub- lic sentiment. On any question of this kind public sentiment is necessary for its enforcement, and I think we can test public sentiment in that way with- out imperiling all the rest of the work that is done. I sincerely trust that Al- derman Bennett’s motion will prevail. MR. REYELL: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a question of personal privilege. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. REVELL: I desire to say in view of the statements of Alderman Bennett, Mr. Rosenthal and Mr. Shan- ahan, I will vote in favor of the amend- ment. MR. DEVER: Mr. Chairman, before this question is put that we are to de- cide upon, and for the purpose of avoid- ing confusion upon this subject, and making it as clear as the subject will permit it to be, I would like to make some inquiry as to the legal effect of the last sentence in a paragraph that was adopted by the Convention some two weeks ago, I think on motion of Alderman Bennett, but I am not cer- tain as to that. I will read the para- graph: “The specification of particular powers shall never be construed as a limitation upon the general powers granted by the charter; it being in- tended to grant and bestow upon the City of Chicago all the powers of mu- nicipal government which can constitu- tionally be delegated to it by the legis- lature, and which are not expressly pro- hibited to it by this charter, or by the constitution of the state; and are not in conflict with any general law of the state. ’ ’ It has been said, although I am not prepared to say that it is the law, that the law is in this city that the saloons ought to be closed on Sunday; that that is the general law of the state. Now, then, the question very naturally arises whether this provision would save that old law and nullify the paragraph of the Bennett amendment we are about to vote upon now. Whether or not this provision would not nullify the provision we are about to vote upon today, 1 ‘ and are not in conflict with any general law of the state,” nor in existence, at least it is so said, that prevents the sale of liquor on Sunday. Clearly the passage of this amendment and that paragraph con- flicts with the general law of the state. MR. BENNETT: The adoption of this amendment will not nullify the provisions of this section. As the char- ter stands now we have adopted and seek to maintain the present powers of the City and Village Act and to retain all general laws except as specifically modified by this charter. We are now by this section modifying this general law specifically. Therefore, this pro- vision to which Alderman Dever re- ferred does not in any way affect the matter. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- December 27 794 1906 tary call the roll upon Alderman Ben- nett ’s motion. MR. DEVER: Mr. Chairman, par- don me again, but it seems to me this question has just been called to my attention and I am not prepared to take it up fully, but it seems to me that the Convention ought to be pre- pared at the proper time to take it up and correct any conflict between the provisions adopted and those that are now being adopted. THE CHAIRMAN: When the en- tire charter comes back from the Draft- ing Committee every member will be able to see how each section stands with relation to the other section, and that will be the proper time to raise that point. MR. ROSENTHAL: Having intro- duced this resolution and accepting Al- derman Bennett’s amendment, I do not see why we need to have a separate vote. I think the word “only” ought to come out of the resolution. It is con- fusing and misleading and I ask that that be stricken out of the resolution. Yeas — Badenoch, Baker, Beebe, Beil- fuss, Bennett, Brown, Carey, Church, Cole, Crilly, Dever, Dixon, G. W. ; Eckhart, J. W. ; Erickson, Guerin, Hill, Hoyne, Hunter, Linehan, MacMillan, McKin- ley, O’Donnell, Oehne, Owens, Pendar- vis, Powers, Raymer, Revell, Ritter, Rosenthal, Sethness, Shanahan, Shep- ard, Smulski, Swift, Taylor, Thompson, Yopicka, White, Wilkins, Zimmer — 41. Nays — None. (During roll call.) MR. CAREY: Mr. Chairman, I am not very well versed on this question, but I notice this now that Mr. Rosen- thal asked a certain word to be left out of that resolution. Immediately the Secretary starts to call the roll. I would like to get a little further infor- mation and see what Mr. Rosenthal means. THE CHAIRMAN: What was the word, Mr. Rosenthal? MR. CAREY : I think that should be considered before this matter is voted on. MR. ROSENTHAL: I asked to have the word “only” stricken out of the resolution, and to have the resolution put as amended by Alderman Bennett. I see no necessity for any separate roll call upon Alderman Bennett’s amend- ment. THE CHAIRMAN: Alderman Ben- nett’s resolution is a substitute for the pending matter. Will you read the sub- stitute with the word “only” stricken out, for Mr. Carey’s benefit? The Secretary re-read the substitute, as requested. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal, this word is not stricken out of the Bennett resolution. MR. ROSENTHAL: No. THE CHAIRMAN: Then it is not pertinent to this question. MR. ROSENTHAL: Alderman Ben- nett’s resolution is not a substitute; it is something to be tacked onto the end of this resolution. It is simply a pro- vision for submitting it separately. It is not a substitute at all. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair un- derstood it to be a substitute. MR. HUNTER: It is an amendment to that section. THE CHAIRMAN: Let me see it, if you please. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I do not see that there is any objection to striking out the word “only.” THE CHAIRMAN: That is not in this resolution. MR. ROSENTHAL: Yes, it is. MR, ZIMMER: Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear on this matter. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is trying to clear up everything. Mr. Rosenthal seeks to strike out a word from a resolution that is not before the house for its consideration. December 27 795 1906 ME, HUNTER: Yes, it is; we are •considering it now. MR. ZIMMER : Then I am entirely misinformed on what we are acting on. I am of the opinion that this resolution of Alderman Bennett ’s is an amendment to the matter presented by Mr. Werno and Mr. Rosenthal. MR. HUNTER : That is what it is. That is what we are considering now: Mr. Werno and Mr. Rosenthal’s resolu- tion. THE CHAIRMAN: In order that the matter may be cleared up, let the Sec- retary read the resolution as amended by Mr. Rosenthal with the word ‘ 1 only ’ ’ stricken out. That will give us just ex- actly what you are voting on. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Bennett’s amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: The original reso- lution amended by Mr. Bennett with the word ‘ 1 only ’ ’ left out. The Secretary read the resolution as amended. Mr. HILL: Mr. Chairman— THE CHAIRMAN: Has everybody a clear idea of it now? MR. CAREY: I want to vote aye on the proposition. THE CHAIRMAN: MR. DEVER: May I be permitted? THE CHAIRMAN: Just a moment, Mr. Hill. This is pending the roll call, Mr. Hill. MR. HILL: This was not right before and it may be in the same shape now. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MR. HILL: It seems to me that this word “only” has a definite meaning, and the question ought to be divided upon that. The word “only” limits the sale of liquors on Sunday at these — under these particular circumstances. With the word “only” stricken out, it permits the sale of liquors anywhere you please. MR. HUNTER: No, no. MR. HILL: Now, that is the way it looks to me, and I don’t want to be tied up on that proposition. I think we should vote on the word 1 1 only ’ ’ separately. MR. HUNTER: Roll call. MR. DEYER : Mr. Chairman, I just want to say in voting that it seems to me that that resolution requires us to vote on these two questions, and rather than taking up time discussing what might be a mere technicality, I want to vote aye, w 7 ith the right to ask for an amendment on that particular point later or. MR. POST: Mr. President, I wish to reserve my vote on this question until it comes before the Convention in tech- nical form. MR. G. W. DIXON: Mr. Chairman, I desire to be recorded as voting aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. G. W. Dixon votes aye. THE SECRETARY: Dixon, G. W., votes aye. MR. OEHNE : Mr. Chairman, I want to change my vote from no to aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Oehne changes his vote from no to aye. THE SECRETARY: Oehne, aye. MR. SHEPARD: I vote aye. THE CHAIRMAN: What is that? MR. SHEPARD: I vote aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shepard votes aye. THE SECRETARY: Shepard, aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the reso- lution to amend, the ayes are 41 and the nays are none, and the resolution is car- ried. The remaining matters before the Convention, gentlemen, are the resolutions and reports that were hitherto not dis- posed of. The Chair desires to know what the Convention wishes to have done. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman, I desire to call up — THE CHAIRMAN: Will the gentle- men come to order? Let us have one Convention at a time. MR. SHEPARD: 1 desire to call up the resolution reported by Mr. Eckhart ’s committee — referred to his committee for the purpose of putting into proper lan- December 27 796 1906- guage, found on page 757, namely, “The city may acquire property outside as well as within the city limits, either by pur- chase or condemnation, for park and boul- evard purposes. ” I do not think there is any opposition to that. ME. POST : To a point of order, temporarily, to a point of order. It was agreed that a special order regarding the water front should follow this. I do not desire to interpose that if it is understood — THE CHAIEMAN: Do you desire to take that up now? ME. POST : I do if there is any danger of getting it lost somewhere if I do not. THE CHAIEMAN: It will not be necessary ; it will hold its right of way. ME. POST: I have no objection to Mr. Shepard’s motion being disposed of if the other matter stands in its place. THE CHAIEMAN: Yes, Mr. Shep- ard’s motion is before the house. All those in favor say aye; opposed no. It is carried. ME. EOSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, I have a few amendments here which I would like to have in the proceedings, and, therefore, would like to have them read. These are with reference to the matter of the submerged land, and the other is in reference to Section 2, Chap- ter 7. ME. SHEPAED: Mr. Chairman, I desire, also, to call up the resolution of- fered by Mr. McCormick on page 758, put over last night on account of a special order, as to auditing the books of the Board of Education. THE CHAIEMAN: That was passed — the part that referred to the books of the Board of Education. This relates to the books of the City of Chicago, and it is identical with the provision relat- ing to the Board of Education. ME. SHEPAED: I withdraw that then. ME. O’DONNELL: Mr. Chairman, I was engaged in court all day and got to the Convention just as fast as I could. I intended to call up that notice of mine of reconsidering the vote by which the term of alderman was fixed at four years. I would like to do that tomorrow after- noon, if I possibly can. THE CHAIEMAN: Your rights will be preserved. ME. O ’DONNELL: All right. ME. EITTEE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to call up the resolution offered by me, which was referred yesterday in my absence, that the charter shall provide- that no police station, or fire engine or patrol barn shall hereafter be built within 400 feet of any school building. In the haste to write that before introducing it, the words: “Without the consent of the Education Board,” were omitted. I understand that it will be the opinion of the Convention that that right should be a matter for the city ordinance, but I would like to call attention to the fact that this was brought before the Con- vention because of protests which have come to me on three different occasions where the city had deliberately built — bought property, and built fire engine houses and police stations adjoining school property, and without the knowl- edge of the Board of Education, the matter coming to our notice after the- building was started. It seems to me that in order to protect these school children, you should at least provide that the city cannot exercise that power without the consent of the School Board. I can see- no real objection to it, and for that rea- son I move that it should go in. ME. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is a proper one, but it appears to me that it is a question of regulation by the City Coun- cil. It is true, as stated by Mr. Eitter, that inadvertently, the attention of the council not having been called to the fact, some police station sites have been pur- chased near the schools. The council will be quite as ready as the School Board to protect them, and guard against such December 27 797 1906 a contingency in the future. I do not think that this should be embodied in the charter. It is a limitation, and it is one of those things that there will be no mo- tive whatever on the part of the council in going contrary to the desire expressed by Mr. Ritter. I, therefore, move that the motion be laid on the table. MR. RITTER : Merely because this has happened without any intention on the part of the council is the reason that I believe that something should be in the statute which would prohibit it in the future. MR. BENNETT: It would be a proper provision for the code. THE CHAIRMAN: That is the mo- tion. Those in favor of the motion that it lay on the table signify the same by saying aye; opposed no. It is so or- dered. MR. CHURCH: Mr. Chairman, I move you that we adjourn until tomorrow at 2 o’clock. MR. ROSENTHAL: I would like, in order that these two sections may be be- fore us tomorrow afternoon, to have them read at this time. THE CHAIRMAN: Let them be read. The Secretary read the amendments as hereinafter printed. THE CHAIRMAN: The matters will be printed and taken up at the same time that Mr. Patterson ’s resolution is taken up tomorrow. The meeting stands ad- journed until tomorrow afternoon at 2 o’clock, when we ought to be able to dis- pose of our labors. MR. ROSENTHAL: That number should be 23 instead of 21. And the Convention stood adjourned to meet Friday, December 28, 1906, at 2 o’clock p. m. Secretary. December 27 798 1906- MEMORANDA. These memoranda indicate the various matters adopted by the Convention. (See page 50 and succeeding pages of the proceedings. I. SCOPE OF PROPOSED LEGIS- LATION. Action on all paragraphs under this section has been deferred. 1. A complete charter shall be drawn and submitted to the Legislature em- bodying the resolutions adopted by this Convention. Alternative to 1. Separate bills shall be drawn covering the following sub- jects: a. Consolidation (including parks), b. Public utilities, c. Education, d. Revenue, e. Amendments (if any) of the Mu- nicipal Court Act. f. All other charter provisions, which shall be submitted to a separate vote for adoption. II. CONSOLIDATION. 1. The corporate authorities existing at present for the government of the park systems of Chicago shall be abol- ished and the management of the parks shall become a department of the city government. 2. The administration of the public school system of the city of Chicago and of the Public Library shall con- stitute departments of the city govern- ment. III. THE MAYOR. 1. The charter shall continue sub- stantially the provisions of the pres- ent laws regarding the qualifications and executive functions of the mayor. 2. The charter shall continue the provisions of the present laws regard- ing the relation of the mayor to the city council. Resolved, that it is the sense of this Convention that a clause be inserted in the charter designating a city official who shall, act as mayor during the ab- sence or inability of the mayor. First Alternative to 2 b. The mayor shall have a right to a seat in the city council, but shall have no vote. He shall have the right to speak and present messages and intro- duce measures subject to the general rules of procedure of the city council. Second Alternative to 2: The charter shall continue the pres- ent provisions of the law regarding the relation of the mayor to the city coun- cil, except that he shall not preside at the meetings of the city council, but the city council shall elect its own presiding, officer from its members. 3. The veto power of the mayor shall be as now prescribed by law. 4. The term of office of the mayor shall be four years. IV. ELECTIONS. First alternative to 1 : Elective city officers shall be nominated under a sys- tem of direct primaries, with appropri- ite provision for independent nomina- tions by petition. 2. The names of all the nominees for each office shall be printed on the ballot under the title of the office for wffiich they are candidates, in alphabeti- cal order, and the designation of the party, if any, to which they belong. 4. a. The election of all city offi- cers, including those for the municipal court, shall be held in the spring. Pro- vided, however, that judges of the mu- December 27 799 1906 nicipal court shall be elected at a time when no offices other than judicial are to be filled. 5. Candidates and political commit- tees shall be required to make sworn statements of receipts and expenditures of any campaign for nomination or election. V. CIVIL SEEVICE. 1. All departments of the city gov- ernment shall be under an appropriate civil service law. Alternative to 1: a. The civil service I law shall apply to the department of public parks. The application of the civil service law to the department of public parks shall not operate in and of itself to dis- charge the present employees. b. The civil service law shall apply to tne municipal court. The Bailiff and Chief Clerk of the Municipal Court shall be subject to re- moval by a majority of the judges of the court, after a hearing, for incompe- tency, inefficiency, malfeasance or mis- feasance in office. The reasons for such removal shall be specified in writing and shall be spread at large upon the records of the court. Section 2 of Civil Service, together with resolution printed in the proceed- ings of December 6, have been referred to the Committee on Municipal Elec- tions, Appointment and Tenure of Office, with instructions to report to the Con- vention within ten days. VI. THE CITY COUNCIL. The charter shall provide for redis- tricting the city into seventy wards, of compact and contiguous territory, and with an equitable distribution of area and population, as soon as possible after j the adoption of this charter, one alder- I man to be elected from each ward. The city shall thereafter be redis- ! tricted by the City Council every ten i years after the federal census has been taken, but no more than seventy wards shall be made. 2. The compensation of aldermen shall be at the rate of thirty-five hun- dred dollars per annum. The term of office of aldermen shall be four years. The aldermen shall be elected at the same time as the mayor. VII. POWEES OF THE CITY COUN- CIL IN GENEEAL. 1. The powers of the city council shall be as now prescribed by law, ex- cept as modified by this charter. The city council shall have all powers of local legislation which can, under the con- stitution, be vested in a municipality; subject to the constitution of the state, the provisions of the charter, and the general laws of the state. In addition to all the legislative powers now conferred upon it by the general cities and villages act and the amendments thereof, the charter shall vest in the City Council the power to regulate the legal observance of the weekly day of rest, commonly called Sunday; and the sale of liquors by bona fide athletic, charitable, educa- tional, fraternal,' musical and social associations, corporations and societies at social gatherings, or entertainments conducted or held by them only. Pro- vision shall be made in the charter for the submission of this section to a vote at the time of the adoption of the char- ter. The charter shall be so framed that the question of the adoption of this section may be voted upon separately. The provision for such submission of this section to a vote, shall be so framed as to require the voter to vote upon the two questions separately. 2. The specification of particular powers shall never be construed as a December 27 800 1906 limitation upon the general powers granted by the charter ; it being in- tended to grant and bestow upon the City of Chicago all the powers of mu- nicipal government which can constitu- tionally be delegated to it by the legislature, and which are not expressly prohibited to it by this charter, or by the constitution of the state ; and are not in conflict with any general law of the state. 3. No ordinance shall be passed finally on the day it is introduced, except when approved by an affirmative vote of two- thirds of all the members of the city council. Till. POWERS OF THE CITY COUN- CIL WITH REGARD TO OFFICES. The office of City Clerk shall cease to be a Charter office, and the City Council shall have power by ordinance to provide for the method of choosing the City Clerk and to provide for the duty of the City Clerk. The City Treasurer shall be ex-officio city collector. 3. The City Council shall have power to investigate any department of the city government and the official acts and conduct any city officer and the making, terms, and performance of any public contract, and for the purpose of ascertaining facts in connection with such investigation to compel the attend- ance of witnesses and the production of material documents and books. IX. POLICE POWER. 1. The police power of the city shall extend to the prevention of crime, to the preservation and advancement of local peace, safety, morals, health, order and comfort, and to the prevention of fraud and extortion within the community, by measures of regulation, licensing, require- ment of bonds, inspection, registration, restraint and prohibition, as well as by the establishment of municipal services. X. REVENUE. GENERAL TAXATION. Section 1. The City Council of the City of Chicago shall annually in the first quarter of its fiscal year, levy a general tax for all city, school, park and library purposes for such year, not ex- ceeding in the aggregate, exclusive of the amounts levied for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness per centum of the assessed value of the taxable property of said city as assessed and equalized according to law for gen- eral taxation. The said City Council in its annual levy shall specify the re- spective amounts levied for the pay- ment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, the amount levied for general city purposes, amount levied for educational purposes, the amount levied for school building purposes, the amount levied for park purposes and the amount levied for li- brary purposes. The county clerk shall extend upon the collector’s warrant all of such taxes, subject to the limita- tion herein contained, in a single col- umn as the City of Chicago tax. In case the aggregate amount levied, ex- clusive of the amount levied for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, shall exceed per centum of such assessed value such ex- cess shall be disregarded, and the resi- due only treated as certified for exten- sion. In such case all items in such tax levy except those for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, shall be re- duced pro rata. The city treasurer of the City of Chicago shall keep separate funds in conformity to said tax levy, which funds shall be paid out by him, upon order of the proper authority for the purposes only for which the same were levied. 2. The Board of Education of the City of Chicago shall in January of each December 27 801 year prepare and transmit to the City Council a statement of its receipts and expenditures for the preceding calen- dar year stating therein the sources of its receipts and the several objects and purposes of its expenditures. It shall also prepare and transmit to the City Council in January of each year an es- timate of its expenditures for the cur- rent calendar year, stating therein the several objects and purposes of such expenditures. 3. The Board of Park Commissioners of the City of Chicago shall in January of each year prepare and transmit to the City Council a statement of its re- ceipts and expenditures for the preceding calendar year stating therein the sources of its receipts and the several objects and- purposes of its expendi- tures. It shall also prepare and transmit to the City Council in January of each year an estimate of its expendi- tures for the current year, stating therein the several objects and purposes of such expenditures. 4. The Board of Library Directors of the City of Chicago shall in January of each year prepare and transmit to the City Council a statement of its receipts and ex- penditures for the preceding calendar year, stating therein the sources of its receipts and the several objects and pur- poses of its expenditures. It shall also prepare and transmit to the City Council in January of each year an estimate of its expenditures for the current year, stating thereing the several objects and purposes of such expenditures. Action on the following propositions has been deferred pending the report of the special commitee on revenue in- formation. Alternative to 1 : a. The limit of the tax rate fixed by the charter shall not apply to taxes levied for school purposes, but 1906 taxes shall be levied for school build- ing and educational purposes as now provided by law. b. The limit of the tax rate to be fixed by the charter shall not apply to taxes levied for library purposes, but the City Council shall annually levy for library purposes a tax of not less than one mill and not more than one and one-half mill on the dollar on all taxable property in the city. c. The City Council shall have power to levy annually a tax of two mills on the dollar on all taxable property for a police pension fund. 2. The City Council shall have power to levy a tax of one per cent, additional to the rate fixed by the above resolu- tion for a specific purpose or purposes, provided that such additional tax levy shall have been approved by a major- ity of those voting on the question at a general or special election. 3. a. The City Council shall have power to tax and license, or either, any trade, occupation or business carried on wholly or in part within the city limits, and all persons, firms or corporations owning or using franchises or privi- leges. 4. a. The City Council shall also have power to tax or license all wheeled vehicles used upon the streets of the city, or any particular class of such vehicles. The income therefrom shall be used in the repair and improvement of streets and alleys of the city ex- clusively. Alternative to 5: The City Council shall have power to make local im- provements by special assessment or by special taxation of contiguous prop- erty or otherwise; but not more than 50 per cent, of the cost of repaving j any street or alley shall thus be im- posed upon contiguous property, after such street or alley has once been paved, December 27 802 1906 and the expense thereof paid in whole or in part by special assessment or special taxation. XI. INDEBTEDNESS. 1. The charter shall vest in the city the power to assume and incur debts and issue bonds in the manner and to the extent that such power is permitted to be granted by the constitutional amendment of 1904. XII. EXPENDITURES. 1. The provisions of the present city act regarding the annual appropriation crdinanc, the limitation of expendi- tures and contracts by such appropria- tions, the keeping of a separate fund for each appropriation, and the require- ment of warrants for payments, shall be substantially embodied in the charter. XIII. PROPERTY. I. The city may acquire property by purchase or condemnation for any pur- pose for which it may exercise the power of taxation. The city may acquire by purchase outside as well as within the city limits for any municipal purpose, and may acquire property outside of the city limits by purchase or condemnation for park, boulevard or forest preserve pur- poses^ XIV. CONTRACTS. 1. Municipal services may be per- formed and municipal works carried out by the city directly or by means of con- tract. XV. STREETS AND PUBLIC PLACES. All private temporary users of space above or below the level of streets, al- leys or other public places shall pay compensation to the city according to some definite scale to be fixed by gen- eral ordinance. This provision shall not apply to grants for public utilities. XVI. PUBLIC UTILITIES. 1. The provisions of the Mueller law and the limitations contained therein (including the twenty -year limit on franchises), except as herein otherwise provided, shall be extended to all in- tramural railways, subways, telephone, telegraph, gas, electric lighting and power plants, and other local public utility works operated in, over, under or upon the streets and public places of the city, also to docks, wharves and their necessary appurtenances. 2. The present powers regarding water works and water supply shall be con- tinued. 3. Any consent granted by the city for the private operation of public util- ity w T orks shall be made subject to the continuing exercise of the city’s street and police pow r ers concerning the struc- ture or works permitted, whether re- served in the grant or not. Alternative to 4: Such consent hereafter granted, shall further be subject to the pow T er of the city, whether expressly reserved in the grant or not, to make reasonable regu- lations of the charges to be made in the operation of such public utilities. The city shall have no pow r er to grant away or limit the subsequent exercise of this right, except that the question of rea- sonableness of any such regulation shall always be determined with due regard to the provisions and limitations of the grant under which such public utility is being operated. 5. Such consent shall further be sub- ject to the right of the city to require adequate service and reasonable exten- sions at all times. No city officer or employe shall di- rectly or indirectly ask for, demand or accept for his own use, or for the use of another, any free pass, frank, gratui- ty, gratuitous service, or discrimina- December 27 803 1906 tion from any person or corporation holding or using any franchise, privi- lege or license granted by the city. But this prohibition shall not ex- tend to the furnishing of free transpor- tation to members of the police and fire •departments while on duty. The charter shall contain appropriate provisions for the enforcement of this prohibition. The following proposition as offered by Mr. Snow (and amended from the floor by Messrs. Rosenthal and Shepard) is still pending. Amend proposition 1, Section 16, Pub- lic Utilities, by adding the following: Provided that when the city shall own and operate a public utility then and in such case the city shall keep separate accounts for each public utility, and that the income from each service shall ; be used solely for the benefit of that utility exactly as though it were an 1 independent business enterprise; and reasonable sinking funds, requirements for improvements or extensions, the price of or charge for the service ren- dered or commodity furnished by such utility shall be lowered, to the end that the patrons of such utility shall direct- ly secure the greatest benefit of the city’s ownership thereof, and no such utility shall be so operated as to render its charge for service an indirect form of taxation. XVII. PARKS, BOULEVARDS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS. 1. The management of the parks and parkways and small parks, and of any forest preserve or outer belt park sys- tem shall be vested in a board of park commissioners consisting of nine mem- ber who shall be appointed by the mayor of the City of Chicago — three from the West Side, three from the South Side and three from the North Side; three for a term of two years, three for a term of four years, and three for a term of six years, their successors to be ap- pointed for a term of six years. Any vacancy which may occur shall be filled by appointment of the mayor, for the unexpired term. No appointment, how- ever, shall be acted upon until at a subsequent meeting of the City Coun- I cil. The park commissioners shall be ap- pointed by the mayor, with the consent of two-thirds of the members of the City Council. The following paragraph was de- ferred, for consideration together with the subject of Revenue. 2. Taxes may be levied and bonds is- sued for park purposes by the City Council only upon the request of the park board; and park funds shall be paid out only upon the order of the park boarcf. XVIII. EDUCATION. I. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCA- TION. The City of Chicago shall constitute one school district. The public school system of the city shall be under the management and control of a depart- ment of education at the head of which there shall be a Board of Education, and no power by this charter vested in the Board of Education or in any officer of the department shall be exercised by the City Council except as by this char- ter otherwise provided. TT. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION. The management of the public school system of the city shall be vested in a board of education of fifteen members to be appointed by the mayor, with the approval of a majority of the City Council. All nominations of members of Board of Education by the mayor shall lie over at least one week before action for confirmation or rejection thereon by the City Council. December 27 804 1906 They shall serve for a term of four years, except that on the first appoint- ment of the board three members shall be chosen for one year, four for two years, four for three years, and four for four years, and annually thereafter members shall be appointed to suc- ceed those whose terms expire. The members of the Board of Educa- tion shall serve without compensation. To be eligible for appointment to the board a person shall be at least thirty years of age and a resident and citizen of the United States and of the City of Chicago for at least five years im- mediately preceding the appointment. Section III, with amendments, has been re-referred to the Committee on RULES, PROCEDURE and GENERAL PLAN. The committee report will be found under ‘ ‘ Resolutions. ’ * III. SCHOOL PROPERTY. The charter shall re-enact in sub- stance the provisions of the existing law regarding the acquisition, tenure, and disposition of property for school purposes, but no real estate shall be leased for a term longer than five years, nor shall the terms of any existing lease be altered without the concurrence of the City Council. BY MR. B. A. ECKHART: Strike out all after the word “pur- poses, ” in the fifth line, and add “but no real estate shall be leased for a term longer than five years without the con- currence of the City Council, nor shall the terms of any lease be altered with- out such concurrence. ’ ’ BY MR. ERDMANN : Amend by inserting after the word “years, ” at the end of the sixth line, the following “unless with the concur- rence of the City Council by a three- fourths’ vote.” BY MR. ROSENTHAL: Amend by inserting after the word “lease,” at the end of the seventh line, the following “the unexpired term of which is longer than five years.” IV. POWERS AND ADMINISTRA- TIVE DUTIES OF THE BOARD. In addition to the powers now vested in it by law, the board of education shall have power to establish as well as maintain schools of all grades and kinds, including normal schools, schools for defectives and delinquents, schools for the blind, the deaf and the crip- pled, schools or classes in manual train- ing, constructional and avocational teach- ing, domestic arts and physical culture, extension schools and lecture courses, and all other educational institutions and facilities. It shall have the power to co-operate with the juvenile court and to make ar- rangements with the public and other libraries and museums for the purpose of extending the privileges of the pub- lic library and museums to the attend- ants of schools and the public in the neighborhood of the schools. The board of education shall have the power to fix the school age of pupils, which in kindergartens shall not be under four years and in grade schools shall not be under six years. Action on Section V has been de- ferred pending the report of the special committee on revenue information. V. REVENUE. The charter shall preserve the provi- sions of the present law regarding the levy and collection of taxes for school purposes, except that it shall not em- body the limitation of the power to support schools to the period of nine months of the year. The provisions of the present law re- garding the care and custody of school funds shall be re-enacted. The board of education shall have power by and with the concurrence of the City Council to issue bonds to raise December 27 805 1906 money for purchasing school sites and for the erection of school buildings, and provision shall be made for the pay- ment of such bonds out of the school building tax. VI. EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF THE BOARD. Rules of the board of education shall be enacted or changed, money appro- priated or expended, salaries fixed or changed, courses of instruction and text- books adopted or changed (subject to additional provisions hereinafter con- tained), only at regular meetings of the board of education, and by a vote of the majority of the full membership of the board of education, and upon such propositions, and upon all propositions requiring for their adoption at least a majority of all the members of the board, the ayes and nays be taken and recorded. VII. OFFICERS. The board of education shall annual- ly choose one of its members as presi- dent, and one as vice-president of the board. The board shall appoint as ex- ecutive officers a superintendent of education and a business manager, and may also appoint or provide for the ap- pointment of such other officers and employes as it may deem necessary, and shall, subject to the provisions of this charter prescribe their duties, compen- sations and terms of office, but the term of office of the superintendent of educa- tion and of the business manager shall not be less than four years. And the salary of no officer shall be lowered dur- ing his term of office. The requirement that an officer of the city shall at the time of his appoint- ment be a resident of the city, shall not apply to the superintendent of education. The appointment and removal of the superintendent of education, business manager, attorney and auditor, shall not be subject to the civil service law, but they shall be removable only for cause, by a vote of not less than two-thirds of all the members of the board, upon written charges to be heard by the board on due notice to the officers charged therewith, but pending the hearing of the charges, such officers may by a two-thirds vote, be suspended by the board. The concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the board shall be re- quired to appoint the superintendent of education and the business manager. VIII. SUPERINTENDENT OF EDU- CATION. (1.) The superintendent of education shall have a seat in the Board of Educa- tion, but no vote. Appointments, promotions, and trans- fers of teachers, principals, assistant and district superintendents and other educational and attendance officers shall be made; and text books and spe- cifications for educational apparatus, shall be introduced only upon the rec- ommendation of the superintendent of education, with the approval of a majority of the Board of Education, or by the Board of Education by a two- thirds vote of all its members. Provided, That said text books or ap- paratus when once adopted shall not be changed within four years thereafter. IX. THE BUSINESS MANAGER. The business manager shall have the general care and supervision of the property and the business matters of the department of education. In matters affecting the general poli- cy of his administration he shall be subject to the direction of the board. Among the employes of the Board of Education shall be a trained architect and a trained engineer. December 27 806 1905 X. APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS, ETC. (1.) Appointments and promotions of teachers shall be made for merit only, and after satisfactory service for a probationary period of three years, appointments of teachers and principals shall become permanent, sub- ject to removal for cause upon written charges, but the board need not retain in service more principals or teachers than in its judgment the needs of the schools require. XI. COMPULSORY EDUCATION. The maximum age of compulsory school attendance shall be increased from fourteen to sixteen. But the children between the ages of fourteen years and sixteen shall not be required to attend school for such time during said years as they may be in good faith engaged in regular employment not less than five hours daily for not less than five days in each week. XII. PENSIONS. 't’he Board of Education may, and with the co-operation and consent of the City Council, establish a permanent pen- sion system for teachers, principals and other employes of the Board of Educa- tion. It may be maintained in part from the public funds to be provided by the city, and in part by voluntary, fixed and proportionate contributions, to be retained from the salaries of teachers and principals. The pension system, as now administered, shall continue until the same is organized for administra- tion under and by virtue of the provi- sions hereof. XIII. REPORT AND EXAMINA- TION OF ACCOUNTS. The mayor shall, as often as yearly, and may as often as semi-annually ap- point certified public accountants, to ex- amine and audit the accounts of the Board of Education, and the report thereof, together with any recommenda- tion of such accountants, as to change in the business methods of the board, or of any of its departments, officers, or employes, shall be made to the mayor and to the Board of Education, and be spread upon the records of the latter. The expenses of such audit shall be paid by the board. XIX. LIBRARY. 1. The management of the public library shall be vested in a board of nine library directors, constituted as at present, and with the present powers and duties, except as herein otherwise provided. 2. The term of office of members of the library board shall be six years, three retiring every two years. 3. The library board may establish branch libraries and reading rooms, sub- ject to the approval of the City Coun- cil. XX. PENAL, CHARITABLE AND REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS. 1. The charter shall grant to the city, in addition to the powers which it has now: a. Authority to maintain alms- houses. b. Authority to maintain free lodg- ing houses, and free employment bu- reaus in connection therewith. c. Authority to maintain creches for infants. d. Authority to maintain training schools for dependent and indigent children. 2. The city shall have the power to contract with the county of Cook or otherwise provide for the detentions, housings and care of indigent persons, prisoners, or dependent or delinquent children. This section shall contain a clause that the City of Chicago can contract with the county of Cook for the erec- tion and maintenance of a Juvenile Court building. December 27 807 1906 XXI. INITIATIVE AND REFEREN- DUM. The charter shall provide that any or- dinance granting any franchise or the use of any street or alley or space below as well as above the level of the sur- face of the streets, alleys and other public places for any public utility, shall not go into effect until sixty (60) days after the passage thereof, and if within that time twenty (20) per cent, of the voters of the city petition for the submission of such ordinance to popular vote at the next succeeding general or special election, such ordinance shall not go into effect until and unless at such election it shall have been ap- proved by a majority of the voters vot- ing upon the question. XXII. RELATION OF THE CHAR- TER TO OTHER LAWS, AND AMENDMENTS TO CHARTER. The following section has been re- ferred to the LAW COMMITTEE for an opinion as to its constitutionality. 1. Any act of the general assembly that shall be passed after the adoption of this charter relating to the govern- ment or the affairs of the cities of the state or of cities containing a stated number of inhabitants or over shall be construed as not applying to the City of Chicago. 2. The charter shall re-enact the pro- visions (not inconsistent with these res- olutions) of the existing laws applicable to the government of the City of Chi- cago, and shall vest in the City Council power to amend such of these provisions as the charter may specify. The following sections have been re- ferred to the LAW COMMITTEE for an opinion as to their constitutionality: 3. The City Council shall have power to amend any part of this charter with the approval of three-fifths of those voting at the proposed change at any election, provided that the tax rate established by this charter shall not be increased nor the twenty-year limit on franchise be altered [extended], nor the municipal court act amended, nor any provision be made for the exercise of any power not strictly local or munici- pal in its character. 4. The charter shall make provision for submission to .popular vote of amendments to the charter, proposed by a petition of per cent, of the voters of the city, such proposed amendments to become part of the charter when ap- proved by a majority of the votes cast at the election (or: upon the question). Provided, that in this manner the tax rate established by this charter shall not be increased, nor the twenty-year limit on franchises be altered, nor the municipal court act amended, nor any provision be made for the exercise of any power not strictly local or munici- pal in its character. 5. Nothing in this act shall be con- strued to modify, impair or affect or to confer upon the City Council power to pass any ordinance modifying, impair- ing or conflicting with the provisions of Section 18 of an act entitled “An act to provide for the annexation of cities, incorporated towns and villages or parts of same to cities, incorporated towns and villages ’ ’ approved April 25th, 1889. December 27 808 1906 Resolutions offered from the floor of the Convention, but not acted upon. BY. MR. SHEPARD: Resolved, That in any act providing for the formation and disbursement of the police pension fund the following provision be incorporated: That the members of the police de- partment to be included in the bene- fits of such pension fund shall be as follows: The General Superintendent of Po- lice, Assistant General Superintendent of Police, Inspectors, Captains, Lieu- tenants, Sergeants, Patrolmen, Patrol Drivers, Superintendent of Horses, Su- perintendent of Construction, Superin- tendent Bureau of Identification, As- sistant Superintendent Bureau of Iden- tification, Secretary of the Police De- partment, Private Secretary to the Gen- eral Superintendent of Police, Police Custodian Stolen Property, Chief Clerk Secretary’s office, Clerk in Secretary’s office, Chief Clerk in Detective Bu- reau, Chief Operator, Assistant Chief Operator, Operators, Drillmaster, Chief Matron, Matrons, Feed Inspector, De- partment Printer, Vehicle Inspectors, Photographer, Assistant Photographer, Stenographers, Supply Drivers, Finger Print Expert and such other mem- bers as may hereafter be provided for by ordinance. BY MR. BENNETT: Resolved, that the present laws re- lating to firemen’s pensions be retained and included in the charter. BY MR. BROWN: Permission shall not be given to any person to retail any goods, fruit or vegetables from a wagon or other vehicle. BY MR. SNOW: Amend proposition 1, Section 16, Pub- lic Utilities, by striking out all after the word 4 * city” in line 11, and insert- ing in lieu thereof the following: “also to docks and wharves.” BY MR. LATHROP: Amend Section 1, of XVI, by adding the following words: Provided, However, that the city shall not have power to operate such public utility works by virtue of any- thing in this section contained. BY MR. SHEDD: Resolved, That in cases where a po- lice officer, in the actual discharge of his duty, is charged with an offense, such as murder, manslaughter, or other serious charge, or charges, that the Common Council shall appropriate a sufficient fund for attorney’s fees to the end that such officer shall be prop- erly represented in court, and the truth of said allegations brought out. BY MR. VOPICKA: RESOLVED: That the City of Chi- cago be given power in condemnation proceedings to make the assessments for benefits payable in such number of annual installments as the City Coun- December 27 809 1906 cil shall by ordinance determine, not to exceed twenty in number, and to issue bonds for the anticipation of such assessments payable out of the pro- ceeds of the collection thereof, and to sell such bonds at not less than par, for the creation of a special fund to be used in the payment of the awards for property taken or damaged through such condemnation proceedings. BY MR. VOPICKA: Resolved: That the City of Chicago shall have power to appropriate and set aside out of the moneys received through general taxation or from mis- cellaneous sources, as a special fund to be used only for the repair or re- pavement of such streets as have been paved by special assessment since July 1, 1901, and such streets as shall here- after be so paved. BY MR. VOPICKA: Resolved: That the City of Chicago shall have power to create a special fund to be used for the purpose of guaranteeing the prompt payment at maturity of all special assessment bonds of the City of Chicago issued since January 1, 1903. BY MR. VOPICKA: Resolved: That the City of Chicago shall have power to levy assessments for improvements according to the pres- ent Special Assessment law with the lollowing amendment: In cases where the amount of an assessment for widening or opening of a street or streets exceeds the sum of $500,000, then the assessment is to be divided in the following manner: 10 per cent, of the amount to be levied on the property facing the streets where the improvement is made and 90 per cent, of the assessment to be levied pro rata on all the real estate property in Chicago. BY MR. PENDARVIS: Resolved, That the charter shall con- tain a provision preserving the integ- rity of prohibition districts established by ordinance of the city, and providing that the City Council shall have no power to modify or abolish any such prohibition district until the proposi- tion to so modify or abolish any such district shall, upon a petition of not less than 20 per cent, of the legal voters then residing within any such district, be submitted to and be ap- proved by a majority of all the legal voters residing within such prohibition district. BY MR. SHEDD: Resolved, That the charter shall con- tain a provision that no employe of the city shall become or continue to remain a member of any society or organiza- tion, obedience or allegiance to whose rules, principles or practices shall re- quire or impose any express or implied obligation upon such employe to refrain from the full discharge of his duties or to do any act against the government of the city, or in Violation of any ordi- nance or law, or of any rule or regula- tion of any department of the city, or of any order of any official of the city or of any of its departments. For any violation of this provision an employe shall be at once discharged from the city service by the head of the de- partment in which he is employed. BY MR. WILKINS: Upon the adoption of this charter, the Board of Education shall prepare or cause to be prepared, a code of morals, non-sectarian in character and tenor, and put the same into book form, to be used as one of the text books of the public schools and taught in all the branches of the same. BY MR. WILKINS: During the life of this charter and while it operates as the Constitution December 27 810 1906 of the Municipality of Chicago, the children in the public schools shall not be segregated or separated in the rooms and classes on account of their nation- ality, race or color. BY MR. EIDMANN: Resolved, That no appointment by the mayor shall be made unless concurred in by the City Council at a subsequent meeting. BY MR. WERNO: Reconsider the vote by which para- graph 3, Section II, on page 593, pro- viding that “ members of the Board of Education shall serve without compen- sation ’ ’ was passed for the purpose of submitting the following as a substi- tute for said paragraph: Paragraph 3. Section II. The members of the Board of Educa- tion shall be paid such compensation as the City Council may by ordinance provide. REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURE AND GENERAL PLAN — B. A. Eckhart, Chair- man. Chicago Charter Convention: Gentlemen: — Your Committee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan to whom were referred the following res- olutions and amendments: III. SCHOOL PROPERTY. The charter shall re-enact in sub- stance the provisions of the existing law regarding the acquisition, tenure, and disposition of property for school purposes, but no real estate shall be leased for a term longer than five years, nor shall the terms of any existing lease be altered without the concurrence of the City Council. BY MR. B. A. ECKHART: Strike out all after the word “ pur- poses, ” in the fifth line, and add “but no real estate shall be leased for a term longer than five years without the con- currence of the City Council, nor shall the terms of any lease be altered with- out such concurrence. ’ ’ BY MR. EIDMANN: Amend by inserting after the word “years,” at the end of the sixth line, the following “unless with the concur- rence of the City Council by a three- fourths’ vote.” BY MR. ROSENTHAL: Amend by inserting after the word ‘ ‘ lease, ’ ’ at the end of the seventh line, the following “the unexpired term of which is longer than five years.” would respectfully report that the com- mittee has considered the subject mat- ter, and recommends the adoption of the following: The charter shall re-enact in sub- stance the provisions of the existing law regarding the acquisition, tenure and disposition of property used, in- tended, acquired, held or sought to be disposed of, for school purposes or the use of schools, but no real estate shall be leased by said board, either as lessor or lessee, for a term longer than five years without the concurrence of the City Council, nor shall the provisions of any lease, now or hereafter made, whose unexpired term may exceed five years, be altered without such concur- rence. Respectfully submitted, B. A. ECKHART, Chairman. BY MR. BENNETT: Resolved, That the present pension laws relating to policemen be retained and included in the charter. BY MR. J. W. ECKHART: Resolved, That it is the sense of this Convention that the present pension law providing for a pension system of em- ployes of the Chicago Public Library be included in the proposed charter for the City of Chicago. December 27 811 The following resolution has been re- ferred to the LAW COMMITTEE with instructions to draft a provision em- bodying the sense of the resolution: BY MR. PATTERSON: The charter shall contain a provision ■extending the jurisdiction of the City of Chicago over those submerged lands up to the line of navigation which are not now under jurisdiction of the park boards. BY MR. McCORMICK: The mayor shall, as often as yearly, and may as often as semi-annually, ap- point certified public accountants, to ex- amine and audit the accounts of the city, and the report thereof, together with any recommendation of such ac- countants, as to change in the business methods of the city, or of any of its de- partments, officers, or employes, shall be made to the mayor and City Coun- cil, and be spread upon the records of the latter. The expenses of such audit shall be paid by the city. BY MR. ROSENTHAL: All appointments and removals of employes of the Board of Education, ex- cept as herein otherwise expressly pro- vided, shall be made pursuant to the provisions of the general civil service law. BY MR. ROSENTHAL: The business manager shall with the concurrence of the Board of Education appoint a trained chief architect and a 1906 trained chief engineer, both of whom shall be in the business manager’s department, and whose term of office shall be four (4) years, and whose ap- pointment and removal shall not be subject to the civil service law. BY MR. ROSENTHAL: Amendment to Section 2, Chapter VII, and are not, except as expressly modified or altered by this charter, in conflict with any general law of this state. BY MR. ROSENTHAL: Section XXIII. The State of Illinois hereby cedes, grants and conveys to the City of Chicago all its title to land un- der the waters of Lake Michigan from the shore line of said lake, between the northern boundary of the city and the boundary between the State of Illinois and the State of Indiana, and extend- ing feet into the lake, as well as all title to land formerly under water that the state has not lawfully parted with or lost, such land to be held by the city in the same manner and for the same purposes as they are now held, or should be rightfully held, by the state, and with the same powers of disposi- tion that are now vested in the Legisla- ture of the state, subject to all lawful- ly existing riparian rights, if any, and subject to all public rights of naviga- tion and commerce, and to the authori- ty of the United States in behalf of such public rights. December 27 812 1906 SPECIAL ORDERS Resolution by Mr. Patterson, concerning Submerged Lands (Friday, December 28, 1906, at 2 o’clock p. m.) December 27 813 1906 RESOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO AMENDMENT OF STATE CONSTITUTION Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Illinois, the Senate concurring there: in That there shall be submitted to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection at the next election of members of the General Assem- bly, a proposition to amend the Constitution of this State as follows: Resolved, That Article IV of the Constitution of this State be amended by ading thereto a section to be numbered and known as Section 34, and reading as follows, to-wit: Section 34. The General Assembly shall have power, subject to the condi- tions and limitations hereinafter contained to pass any law (local, special or general) providing a scheme or charter of local municipal government for th& territory now or hereafter embraced within the limits of the City of Chicago. The law or laws so passed may provide for consolidating (in whole or in part) in the municipal government of the City of Chicago, the powers now vested in the city, board of education, township, park and other local governments and authorities having jurisdiction confined to or within said territory, or any part thereof, and for the assumption by the City of Chicago of the debts and liabilities (in whole or in part) of the governments or corporate authorities whose functions within its territory shall be vested in said City of Chicago and may* authorize said city in the event of its becoming liable for the indebtedness of two or more of the existing municipal corporations lying wholly within said City of Chicago, to become indebted to an amount (including its existing indebtedness and the indebtedness of all municipal corporations lying wholly within the limits of said city, and said city’s proportionate share of the indebtedness of said county and sanitary district which share shall be determined in such manner as the General Assembly shall prescribe) in its aggregate not exceeding five per centum of the full value of the taxable property within its limits as ascertained by the last assessment either for State or municipal purposes previous to the incurring of such indebtedness (but no new bonded indebtedness, other than for refunding purposes, shall be incurred until the proposition therefor shall be consented to by a majority of the legal voters of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special) ; and may provide for the assessment of property and the levy and collection of taxes within said city for corporate purposes in accordance with the principles of equality and uniformity prescribed by this Constitution; and may abolish all offices, the functions of which shall be otherwise provided for; and may provide for the annexation of territory to or disconnection of territory from said City of Chicago by the consent of a majority of the legal voters (voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special) of the said city and of a majority of the voters of such territory, voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special, and in case the General Assembly shall create municipal courts in the City of C^ica^o it may abolish the offices of Justices of the Peace, Police Magistrates and Constables in and for the territory within said city and may limit the jursidiction ne Juctf This is an error. February 18 960 1907 RESOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO AMENDMENT OF STATE CONSTITUTION Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Illinois, the Senate concurring there: in That there shall be submitted to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection at the next election of members of the General Assem- bly, a proposition to amend the Constitution of this State as follows: Resolved, That Article IV of the Constitution of this State be amended by ading thereto a section to be numbered and known as Section 34, and reading as follows, to-wit: Section 34. The General Assembly shall have power, subject to the condi- tions and limitations hereinafter contained to pass any law (local, special or general) providing a scheme or charter of local municipal government for the territory now or hereafter embraced within the limits of the City of Chicago. The law or laws so passed may provide for consolidating (in whole or in part) in the municipal government of the City of Chicago, the powers now vested in the city, board of education, township, park and other local governments and authorities having jurisdiction confined to or within said territory, or any part thereof, and for the assumption by the City of Chicago of the debts and liabilities (in whole or in part) of the governments or corporate authorities whose functions within its territory shall be vested in said City of Chicago and mayf authorize said city in the event of its becoming liable for the indebtedness of two or more of the existing municipal corporations lying wholly within said City of Chicago, to become indebted to an amount (including its existing indebtedness and the indebtedness of all municipal corporations lying wholly within the limits of said city, and said city’s proportionate share of the indebtedness of said county and sanitary district which share shall be determined in such manner as the General Assembly shall prescribe) in its aggregate not exceeding five per centum of the full value of the taxable property within its limits as ascertained by the last assessment either for State or municipal purposes previous to the incurring of such indebtedness (but no new bonded indebtedness, other than for refunding purposes, shall be incurred until the proposition therefor shall be consented to by a majority of the legal voters of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special); and may provide for the assessment of property and the levy and collection of taxes within said city for corporate purposes in accordance with the principles of equality and uniformity prescribed by this Constitution; and may abolish all offices, the functions of which shall be otherwise provided for; and may provide for the annexation of territory to or disconnection of territory from said City of Chicago by the consent of a majority of the legal voters (voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special) of the said city and of a majority of the voters of such territory, voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special, and in case the General Assembly shall create municipal courts in the City of Chicago it may abolish the offices of Justices of the Peace, Police Magistrates and Constables in and for the territory within said city and may limit the jursidiction of Justices of the Peace in the territory of said County of Cook outside of said city to that territory, and in such case the jurisdiction and practice of said municipal courts shall be such as the General Assembly shall prescribe; and the February 18 961 1907 General Assembly may pass all laws which it may deem requisite to effectually provide a complete system? of local municipal government in and for the City of Chicago. No law based upon this amendment to the Constitution, affecting the municipal government of the City of Chicago, shall take effect until such law shall be con- sented to by a majority of the legal voters of said city voting on the question at any. election, general, municipal or special; and no local or special law based upon this amendment affecting specially any part of the City of Chicago shall take effect until consented to by a majority of the legal voters of such part of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special. Nothing in this section contained shall be construed to repeal, amend or affect Section Four (4) of Article XI of the Constitution of this State. Adopted by the House, April 22, 1903. Concurred in by the Senate, April 22, 1903. PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 190T GJfyirago (Eljartrr (Emturntimt Convened, December 12, 1900 H EADQUARTCRB 1 T 1 WASHINGTON STREET TCIEPHON E MAIN 4877 Milton J. Foreman Chairman Alexander H. Revell. , . Vice-Chairman M. McKinley Secretary Henry Barrett Chamberlin. asbt. Sec’y February 22 965 1907 PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Regular Meeting, Friday, February 22, 1907 10 O’clock A. M., in the City Council Chamber OFFICIAL RECORD Published by authority of the Chicago Charter Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: The Convention will be in order and the Secretary will call the roll. Present — Foreman, Chairman, and Badenoch, Beebe, Bennett, Brosseau, Burke, Cole, Dixon, G. W., Dixon, T. J., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eid- mann, Fisher, Gansbergen, Greenacre, Guerin, Hill, Hoyne, Hunter, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, McGoor- ty, McKinley, Merriam, Michaelis, O’Donnell, Owens, Post, Raymer, Rin- aker, Ritter, Robins, Rosenthal, Seth- ness, Shanahan, Shepard, Snow, Taylor, Vopicka, Werno, White, Young, Zim- mer — 45. Absent — Baker, Beilfuss, Brown, Carey, Church, Clettenberg, Crilly, Dever, Erickson, Graham, Haas, Harri- son, Lundberg, MacMillan, McCormick, Oehne, Paullin, Pendarvis, Powers, Rainey, Revell, Shedd, Smulski, Sunny, Swift, Thompson, Walker, Wilkins, Wil- son — 29. THE CHAIRMAN: A quorum pres- ent. With such corrections and amend- ments as shall be handed to the Secre- tary, if there is no objection, the min- utes of the last meeting will stand ap- proved as the record of the Convention. The Secretary will read Article V, page 70. Such of the members as have left their copies of the draft at home can get additional copies from the Secretary. THE SECRETARY: Page 70, Ar- ticle V. Powers of the Council. 1, 2, 3, 4. Chapter 6. Officers. Page 71, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. MR. KITTLEMAN: Mr. Chairman, will it be possible to go back to Ar- ticle V? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Do you desire to go back to that article? MR. KITTLEMAN: I should like to have somebody in this Convention who thoroughly understands that ar- ticle to explain it; not for the purpose of finding fault with it, but for the February 22 966 1907 purpose of really understanding what it means. Now, I will say this to the Convention: It is my honest judgment that the one chapter in this whole charter that the down-state legislator is looking at is Chapter 5, and I would like to be able to have a clear under- standing of what it means, so that we may disabuse the mind of anyone that we do not intend to take all the power there is and not leave any for the state. I say this in the interests of the charter. We want to pass a charter, if we can get it down there, that we want to be able to understand clearly and fully what we mean in this section. Now, if the committee which has had it in charge can explain it, it will be for the good of the Convention that that should be done. THE CHAIRMAN: To what section do you refer — what paragraph? MR. KITTLEMAN: I am referring to 5 — 2, and especially 5 — 2 and 5 — 4. THE CHAIRMAN: Will Prof. Mer- riam, who is one of the drafting com- mittee, undertake to explain the mean- ing of paragraphs 2 and 4 of Section o? MR. MERRIAM: Article V, para- graph 2, is merely a formal drafting in legal shape of that which we very thoroughly discussed in the Convention on one or two days of the previous ses- sion. Article Y, paragraph 2, provides that the legislative power of the city shall extend to all matters of local legislation, and so on, which can be constitutionally delegated to it by the legislature, subject to the provisions of this charter; that is to say, subject to the limitations, prohi- bitions and restrictions upon the action of the city that are expressly mentioned in this document itself; and that subject, in the second place, as to the general laws of the state, such as are not modified or preceded by this charter; in other words, you leave the city a grant of power with regard to matters which are purely local in their character, but subject them to the ex- ercise of the power of the legislature, in all matters that are of general or state importance — in regard to all mat- ters that are not particularly and pe- culiarly local in their nature. I do not know fhat it is necessary to elaborate this at any great length, in view of the fact that this matter was quite fully and thoroughly dis- cussed and was approved by practically a unanimous vote of the Convention. The second part of that, “It being the intent hereof that the specifications of particular powers by any other pro- vision of this charter shall never be construed as impairing the effect of the general grant of powers of local govern- ment hereby bestowed,” is merely a declaration of intention intended for the benefit of the courts in construing the act. The ordinary practice laid down by our judiciary is contrary to this, namely, that the specifications of particular powers will be construed as excluding powers that were not specified and enumerated. Now, 'by making this expression of intention, it may be pos- sible to influence in some way the in- terpretation of this act by the courts, in such cases as may come before them from time to time. We have added an- other in the last line of 5 — 2, an ad- ditional limitation and restriction up- on the power of the city to the effect that no taxes shall be imposed or levied except as hereinafter authorized. Some thought that as the article stood it might perhaps give too much leeway in regard to taxes, that the city might unearth and develop various kinds of taxes which were not on the whole de- sirable from the point of view of the state at large. Therefore, this partic- ular requirement was inserted in the way of a limitation, especially stating that no tax should be imposed or levied except as hereinafter authorized and the authorization is contained in the article on Revenue. February 22 967 1907 So far as 5 — 4 is concerned, that con- tains absolutely nothing more than the Convention agreed upon, and is simply the legal phrasing of what the Conven- tion instructed the committee on rules, procedure and general plan to work out. Is there anything further, is there any further question in regard to that, Mr. Kittleman? ME. KITTLEMAN: Mr. Chairman, supposing they ask you (addressing Mr. Merriam) this question down there — some member of the general assembly asks you the question whether under the constitutional amendment power was given to the charter — given here the power to make this charter, or is the power in the legislature to make it? How will you answer? We say here that we can modify or supersede any general state law. If we are MR. MERRIAM: No, we cannot; that is a misunderstanding, Mr. Kit- tleman. MR. KITTLEMAN: What is the lan- guage? MR. MERRIAM: The legislature it- self can permit the city to modify or supersede THE CHAIRMAN: Will the gentle- man speak up? It is impossible for the reporter to get the record. MR. KITTLEMAN: Mr. Chairman, there is not anybody here more anxious to have the charter passed than I am, as you must know, but this language is held down there to mean, by a great j many members, by a great many of the country members of that body, that Chicago is asking for all the powers that the state has. Now, we want to answer that. That’s all. That’s the reason I am bringing it up now. MR. MERRIAM: This means that the city is not by any means asking for all the power that the state has, because that would be absurd and pre- posterous on our part. We are not even asking for all the power that the state could give the city in regard to local affairs. We are asking for merely so much power as may be necessary to conduct ourselves, in our local affairs, subject to such specific limitations in regard to local affairs, and so forth, as the state may seem fit to impose; and subject at all times to all the laws of the state that have general applica- tion. We are asking for nothing more than a grant of power in regard to such matters as the court would de- clare to be merely local matters; and even in regard to those local matters — even in regard to those we have laid down here in this charter — a great many definite and specific limitations, so that even in regard to local power we are not asking for absolutely all power. But if anyone assumes this in- volves a grant of all the powers the state legislature has, I fail to see how you can adduce that from the reading of this clause. This merely gives power over matters of local legislation and municipal government subject to the provisions of the charter and of the general laws of this state which are not modified by the legislature itself. This act is an act of the legislature. If the legislature passes any other act superseding this act, and superseding the general laws of the state, it will not be the act of this convention or of this charter, but a general act of the legis- lature itself. MR. KITTLEMAN: Will you let me I ask one more question? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MR. KITTLEMAN: What effect would it have if in the second line of 5 — 2 you strike out the word “can” and put in the word “may”? Would you make the charter MR. MERRIAM: If you strike out “can” and insert “may,” that would make an entirely different thing; that would make it “such powers as might from time to time be delegated;” that would mean that the legislative power February 22 968 1907 of the city should be extended to all matters of local legislation and to mu- nicipal government to which it does extend. There is a fundamental difference in the use of the word “can” and the use of the word “may.” If you use the word “may,” that means just such as may be from time to time granted; that of course means then that power may be granted; but if you say “can” be granted, then that, of course, makes it far different. ME. SHANAHAN: I would like to ask Prof. Merriam a question. Sup- posing the legislature inserted this para- graph No. 2 in the charter and it was submitted to the people and debated and a general law of the state was passed at some other legislature. How would that apply to the City of Chi- cago? ME. MEEEIAM: All general laws hereafter passed by the state legislature would be applicable to the City of Chi- cago just the same as they are now. ME. KITTLEMAN: Without any referendum? ME. MEEEIAM: Without any ref- erendum, certainly, if they are general laws. If they pass a special and local law dealing with the City of Chicago alone and exclusively, then, of course, that could be done only by the means of a referendum for all of the laws, all of the general laws of the state ap- plying uniformly to the commonwealth of the State of Illinois would be just as binding on us as on anybody else. ME. KITTLEMAN: If they passed a general law applicable to the cities of the state? ME. MEEEIAM: If they passed a general law applicable to the cities of the state without mentioning the City of Chicago, that would not apply; but if they passed a general law applicable to the cities of the state and mention- ing the City of Chicago, then that would apply. ME. KITTLEMAN: Without any referendum? ME. MEEEIAM: Without any ref- erendum. That would not be a local or special matter, or applying to the city. THE CHAIEMAN : Is there any fur- ther discussion on this question? If not, the Secretary will proceed with the reading of Article YI. ME. WHITE: I should like to ask Prof. Merriam a question in regard to Section 5 — 4, by which it appears, un- less I read this wrongly, that if the city council at any time desires to su- persede some provision of this charter by an ordinance of its own, it can do so. I wonder if I misunderstand it? Now, if the voters of the city shall vote in favor of such substitution, the provision of the charter shall hence- forth be inoperative to the city and the ordinance so adopted shall be in effect. Now, to what extent does this ordinance permit the city council to differ from the provisions of this charter itself? For instance, you provide that the mat- ter of taxation shall not be considered a local matter. Now, supposing the council did pass an ordinance abolish- ing that particular article; what would be the particular effect of that? THE CHAIEMAN: Doesn’t the last paragraph clear all of that up? ME. MEEEIAM: Not quite. That would be practically impossible, because it says that this article shall not apply to the article on taxation; therefore, if the city council should substitute some ordinances for the section of the charter covering taxation, it would be barely possible that would bear on that paragraph itself. ME. WHITE: Do you know of any* other provision of the charter where it is not provided like taxation? Has the city council the right to supersede such provision of this charter and sub- stitute ordinances of their own? ME. MEEEIAM: I believe they February 22 969 1907 have a section in there providing that they cannot make any substitution for the article on taxation, or the article of public utility, nor can they, by their own act, destroy any provision of this charter expressly prohibiting or re- straining the action of the officers of this city or any of the officers or de- partments thereof. That is, anything that is in this charter which is prohibited or required, that the council could not destroy or substitute anything in place of it. MR. WHITE: What does this sec- tion intend to cover then? In Section o — 4 here, 4 or 5 — what situation was that intended to cover? MR. ^ERRIAM: Well, suppose it was desired to change the number of aldermen and they might have one al- derman to a ward, or they might change it and have two aldermen to a ward, or they might have sixty wards; and they could not do that under the pres- ent arrangement without a special act of the legislature. It might not be de- sirable to do that, and they might never want to do that, but if they did, they could do it, provided as stipu- lated in the article on the Council; they could not create more than sev- enty wards nor make the term of the aldermen longer than four years. Or again, if you want to change the term of any particular officer, want to change the term of the civil engineer from six to seven years, or back to four years or three years, or if you want to change the term of the park commissioner, make it longer or shorter than it is now, or in any way make any of these changes in regard to the minor points in the city govern- ment, that could be done without re- course to the state legislature, and without the difficulty of getting each time a special act. MR. SNOW: I would like to ask Prof. Merriam a question, whether or not, under this section, as drawn, 4, which gives the council apparently the power after referendum vote to change the charter, with the exception of those provisions relating to revenue and pub- lic utilities, whether under that power it would be possible to change the pro- visions of the charter relative to the public indebtedness? THE CHAIRMAN: Isn’t that con- stitutional? MR. MERRIAM: Article XIII on Indebtedness, merely writes out the provisions for changing it practically — it is contained in the constitution it- self, and the amendment. I don’t see any objection to putting that in in regard to the indebtedness there. MR. SNOW: It seems to me it should be inserted in there, Mr. Chair- man. MR. MERRIAM: I don’t see any possible objection to putting it in. MR. WHITE: I would like to ask one more question. THE CHAIRMAN: One moment. Is Mr. Snow through with the floor? MR. SNOW: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. White. MR. WHITE: What is the peculiar situation in regard to the matter of taxation? What peculiar sanctity in- heres in the property of Chicago that it, of every other great interest of the City of Chicago, must be reserved from the action of home rule? I have been wondering about that ever since I saw this clause. All matters of morals, education, Sabbath keeping and every- thing of that sort the people of the City of Chicago seem wise enough to manage under this charter, but this sacred thing we call property, that, somehow or other, must be labeled ‘ 1 Hands off.” I really ask this question seriously, as I had intended to from the beginning of the Convention. I would like to have that explained to us, what there is in the situation in regard to taxation that requires that it should be a matter that February 22 970 1907 must go to the state legislature, and that the people of Chicago cannot legislate on that as successfully and intelligently as any other matter con- nected with their interest. I hope that will be explained. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, the con- vention, in its informal action, decided there should be a tax limitation, the charter should contain a tax limitation, and, acting upon that theory, the draft- ing committee drew the chapter there on this article. Why the Convention decided upon a tax limitation I am not able to answer. Is there any further discussion so far as this matter is concerned? If not, the Secretary will continue reading Article YI. THE SECRETARY: Page 72, 6, 7; page 74, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, just a minute, while I find the place. THE SECRETARY: Page 76. THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentle- man want the floor? MR, BENNETT: No. It is further on, the point I want to raise. THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. THE SECRETARY: 16, 17 and 18. MR. HUNTER: Mr. Chairman, 18 has reference to the municipal courts, as I understand it, that was to be, and all those matters were to be sub- ject or were to be left to a committee to be put in a separate bill. I move that take the same course. I do not think that it is the time or place for that matter. MR. SHEPARD: I second the mo- tion, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: In the adoption -of this it is moved that paragraph 18, which refers to the bailiff of the mu- nicipal court, his removal, shall be placed in a separate bill, with the bal- ance of the amendments to the munic- ipal court acts. All those in favor sig- nify the same by saying aye; opposed, no. All those in favor signify the same by saying aye, opposed, no. The motion is carried. Now Article VII. THE SECRETARY: Page 77, Ar- ticle VII. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read the changes in those clauses which were made by the drafting com- mittee. The report of the committee on civil service, was never considered by the Convention, therefore the draft- ing committee took those sections which were necessary, in their judgment, for the completion of the act and went over them. The chairman advises that they conform to the present civil serv- ice act. THE SECRETARY: They will be found in the Proceedings, page 874. MR. SHANAHAN: We haven ’t got that. MR. HUNTER: Yes, we have. THE CHAIRMAN: You have a type- written sheet. THE SECRETARY: I have it in the Proceedings; I haven’t the type- written sheet. THE CHAIRMAN: Page 874, in the Proceedings of Saturday, Febru- ary 16. THE SECRETARY: The lower right-hand column, under Civil Service. The draft embodies the recommenda- tions of the committee of the Conven- tion regarding removals and promo- tions which have not yet been acted upon by the Convention. See 7 — 8 and 7 — 12. The draft provides for a grad- ual displacement of the present civil service commissioners and makes them removed only in the same way as other city officials. THE CHAIRMAN: Wait a minute. THE SECRETARY: That’s all. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read from the bill itself, calling paragraph by paragraph. THE SECRETARY: Civil Service; page 77; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 . February 22 971 1907 MR. SHEPARD: Let me ask you bow the civil service commissioners are to be appointed. THE CHAIRMAN: What's that? MR. SHEPARD: How are the civil service commissioners to be appointed? THE CHAIRMAN: By the mayor. MR. SHEPARD: Where is that to be found. THE CHAIRMAN: I think there is a section there somewhere. That can be looked up. THE SECRETARY: 6, 7, 8. MR. SHANAHAN: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the Secretary read 7 — 8 and 7 — 12, where those changes are made. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read 7 — 8 and 7 — 12. THE SECRETARY: Page 79, 7—8. (The Secretary read Section 8 as printed in the proposed bill.) THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, will the gentlemen come to order? The Sec- retary is reading from the civil service act the changes that were made by the drafting committee. The Secretary will proceed. THE SECRETARY: 7—8, at page 79. THE SECRETARY: That is all of Sections, 8, 9, 10, 11, and the change comes in 12. MR. McGOORTY: Is there any change in that section? THE SECRETARY: Yes, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: 12 has the im- portant change. MR. McGOORTY: In 8; I didn't no- tice any change in the reading of 8. THE CHAIRMAN: I think not. MR. HUNTER: I understood you, Mr. Chairman, to say that there was a change in 7 — 8. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will' read 12. THE SECRETARY: 12, page 81. MR. ROBINS: Mr. Chairman, the change that is made in this section seems to me to have gone too far. To those persons in Chicago who have con- sidered civil service administration in the city, the fact that the heads of de- partments or the appointive officer has not had sufficient power is acknowl- edged on all hands. At the same time there are some of us who are not at all willing that an officer who has been in the service for some years, or even if he has been in it for only a year, should be subject to suspension or re- moval by a written statement and an- swer, if made within seven days, at the pleasure of the commission, whether to inquire or not into the merits of the case. We believe that every employe of the city should be assured the right of trial. We believe that the mistake in the past has been that the appointive officer had to affirmatively show his reasons for dismissing the employe. We believe that the employe should be required affirmtively to show that he has not been discharged properly, and that it should not be in the power of the commission to refuse a trial. Some of us think that in the public service in the past, where the appoint- ive officer would have made a state- ment, dismissing an official, and the official might have made a very good statement apparently, but the weight of the statement made by the appoint- ing official would clearly, on the face of it, pass in his favor. The man had been dismissed, and that was the end of it. Upon trial it has been scliown that the statements made by the appoint- ing officer have been shown to be un- true and the official has been retained in the public service. Now, the thing that we are after, or at least what we arc supposed to be after, is efficiency in the public serv- ice and to enable the appointive offi- cers to secure that efficiency in his office. The change as proposed here is a February 22 972 1907 change that will permit, Mr. Chairman, any appointive officer with a friendly administration and a friendly civil service board to discharge; any or all of the employes of that office if he chooses to do so, without the right of the trial reserved. For any single person who is in the department that has so discharged him, the commission can consider the state- ment of the appointive officer and the denial, if you please, of the employe, and then refuse him a trial. We be- lieve that that is a bad amendment. We believe that has gone too far in the other direction, and X wish to move, Mr. Chairman, that: The drafting committee be in- structed to redraft this Section 12 of Article VII, providing that the appointive officer may remove any employe or suspend him, upon mak- ing a written statement to the em- ployer and filing with the commission a written statement stating the rea- sons; and that any employe, within ten ' days thereafter, may file his statement and demand trial, it being required that he affirmatively show that he has been dismissed for other than proper and appropriate causes. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard Mr. Robins ’ motion, that the drafting committee be instructed to amend that section of the civil service act just read, so as to give the right to em- ployes under certain conditions. On that motion, Mr. Rosenthal has the floor. MR. ROSENTHAL: It is evident to me that Mr. Robins has not read the section of the law to which he has ad- dressed himself, and I think possibly he may have had before him the sec- tion of the new proposed county law which says: ‘‘Such commission may, in its discretion, investigate any re- moval, and shall investigate in such case where it reasonably believes the removal has not been made for the purpose of and the manner herein pro- vided. ’ ’ But the draft of the law we have in our charter is quite different. That says: “Said commission may, upon written request of the person sought to be removed’ ’ — must investi- gate — so that every person sought to be removed can demand a trial; and there is that very marked difference between the proposed city law and the proposed county law. In other words, the trial provision of the city law as it exists at the present time is retained in this act, with some modifications easing up the present manner of obtaining trial, because the present manner of trial has led to the very gravest abuses, as all of us know, and has at times made the trial feature of the law seems ridic- ulous. MR. ROBINS: Will the gentleman permit a question? It will probably save further discussion: Does “inves- tigation” mean “trial” in this clause, Mr. Rosenthal? MR. ROSENTHAL: That is the way the city law reads at the present time; “investigation” means “trial,” that is all it means. No other word was ever used. The trouble has been that they have made it the sort of trial which occurs in court. If the gentle- man will permit me, I will turn to that section of the present law. Now, Mr. Chairman, the first draft in the law of the first proposition that was offered by our committee was a proposition doing away entirely with this trial feature, excepting at the in- stance of the commission itself. The present draft of the law, however, re- tains this trial feature, and makes it mandatory upon the commission to make the investigation, provided it is requested in writing by the member. Now, that is as far as we ought to go, and that preserves every employes’ right. In fact, it is very questionable whether it does not go much further than we ought to go, and in the course 1907 973 February 22 of time you. will find that we have gone. MR. O’DONNELL: Under the laws of this state the meanest criminal is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty, and that beyond a rea- sonable doubt. This question strikes at the very foundation and essence of the civil service law. It is the right you are seeking to condemn a city em- ploye without being heard. I say, Mr. Chairman, that that is not fair; it is not just. You provide for the examina- tion, a critical examination, of an em- ploye for a given position. He quali- fies, and he is certified as being quali- fied for that position. He enters upon the duties of his position and works along there. The first thing he knows he is suspended; he is discharged from his position upon the say-so of the head* of the department. What more power had they under the old regime? When the Democrats were elected they would depopulate the Republicans, and the Republicans placed Republicans in when they won. There is no difference at all. The original civil sevrice law that we all stood up for and fought for — I, with others in this city, fought for it, thinking it would raise the city em- ployes’ standard to that of a free man and take him from under the heel of the ward boss and the vile, low politicians that were using the sacred cause of the city and its institutions for their per- sonal gain. Those men who were in favor of the civil service law said the employe should have a hearing, and that he should only be discharged upon trial, and a finding that he was guilty of the offtnses charged against him; if not, he was to be exonerated. Now you want to put the head of the department in a position of being the sole judge; you would deny those who are so un- fortunate as to be a public employe — and I feel under the existing circum- stances now that he who is in the pub- lic employ is an unfortunate man — you want to put him now under the super- intendence or the head of the depart- ment, give the head of the department the power to discharge him — make him his slave — his man. That is a step backward. Let me call your attention to the law. Let me read the law. I read from Section 12. Oh, we have had here in this town, you know, a few fellows that were working for the city who did not fulfill the duties of their positions ac- ceptably, and then, because there were one or two or three who could not be removed without trial, the entire num- ber of the city employes were con- demned. Section 12 reads — that is, of the civil service law that is now in the books: ‘ 1 Removal: No person employed in the classified civil service in the city who shall have been appointed under said rules, and after said examination, shall be removed or discharged, except for cause upon written charges, and after an opportunity to be heard in his own defense. ’ ’ That is what is accorded to the meanest criminal in the state. Now, our civil service outfit — there are a few men in this town who have the civil service under their particular charge, and the trouble is this outfit does not understand the law, they do not under- stand the system under which it is worked, they do not Understand the spirit that brought it into being, and never have learned it; and I have had this happen, when a man, a city em- ploye, is charged with an offense, he is charged with conduct unbecoming a city employe, before the civil service commission, and I have been before them and have said: “Point out the rule or the ordinance that says this is conduct unbecoming a city employe.” Then they make specifications. They have been running the thing them- selves, to suit themselves. Now, gentlemen of this Convention, February 22 974 1907 there is no attorney who has had any experience at all defending anybody before this civil service commission who has not had a similar experience. Now, in the history of the whole com- mission, there has only been one or two men that have understood this law or been fitted by nature or education for the place they have held or were given. This is time for plain talk, be- cause we want to protect these people who are so unfortunate to have to seek such employment, public employment. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Convention, if this draft as presented here by this civil service committee is adopted, you will have a worse state of affairs than under the old regime, when the ward boss was king, and his man was the head of the department. Now, I take this way of calling your attention forcibly to this matter, so that you may give it your attention. I have been through it, been all through it, and I know whereof I speak, and I believe I have put it before you in the proper light. I sincerely trust that this present amendment made as the report of the committee be voted down, and we will go back to the original law, so that those who are in the employment now may have at least a chance, not alone for the purpose of holding the place they have, but to take the stigma that may be cast ii^on them from them, be- cause they have not been heard in their i defense. They are sometimes charged ; with crime, and it is left to the say-so ■ of the civil service commission to de- I bar them or discharge them without ' an opportunity of being heard. ME. POST: May I ask Mr. O'Don- 1 nell a question? MR. O’DONNELL: Yes. MR. POST: T would like to ask if the insertion of some words which would necessitate a trial would meet his point. MR. O’DONNELL: I don’t MR. POST: Would the substitution of the word “ trial” in proper context meet your objection? MR. ROSENTHAL:* Would he put in a trial clause? MR. O’DONNELL: On proper charges that they have an opportunity to be heard, which means a trial. MR. ROSENTHAL: May I ask a question? MR. O’DONNELL: Yes, sir. MR. ROSENTHAL: Doesn’t the old law read: “ No officer or employe in the classified civil service of any city who shall have been appointed under said rules, and after said examination, shall be removed or discharged except for cause upon written charges, and after an opportunity to be heard in his own defense. Such charges shall be investi- gated by or before some officer or board appointed by said committee, to take such investigation,” etc. MR. O’DONNELL: Yes, sir. MR. ROSENTHAL: That is in this law? MR. O’DONNELL: No, sir; it is not. MR. FISHER: What is the differ- ence? MR. O’DONNELL: You remove him first. MR. ROSENTHAL: You suspend him. This says: “Said commission may and shall on written charges against a person sought to be removed, shall investigate and report.” MR. ZIMMER: If this jneans the same, why do we change it? THE CHAIRMAN: Do you ask that question of Mr. Rosenthal? Does Mr. Rosenthal desire to answer the ques- tion ? MR. ROSENTHAL: I would like to have an opportunity to explain. MR. LTNEHAN: I would like to ask him in reference to this question, I would like to know the difference be- | tween this and the old law, if it is not j in the old law everybody gets a trial February 22 975 1907 whether they want it or not, and in this law you only get a trial where you ask for it. ME. FISHEK: That is right ; that is the only difference. MB. SHANAHAN: This is better, because in the old law there is a lot of things they don’t want, anyway. MR. MeGOORTY: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Linelian’s question has not been properly answered. I do not mean by that there has been any intention to give a different construction to this act from what it will bear. But it is clear from comparing the present law with the present draft that it is en- tirely within the discretion of the com- mission as to what manner of investi- gation shall be had. The language of the section itself cannot bear any other consideration, if within the discretion of the commission the accused may ap- pear in his own defense, why, then, it is so determined by the commission it- self. MR. LINEHAN: It says they may upon * * * MR. MeGOORTY: Yes. MR. SHANAHAN: They shall. MR. FISHER: Yes, that is just the point. MR. MeGOORTY: They shall inves- tigate. MR. FISHER: Yes. MR. MeGOORTY: Now, then, it says they shall investigate any removal. The present act says at the outset, “ shall be removed” — that any officer or employe in the classified civil serv- ice of any city, who shall have been ap- pointed under said rules, and after said examination, shall not be removed or discharged except upon written charges, and the opportunity to be heard in his own defense. Now, the obvious purpose of the adoption of this section is to do away with trials. Under this proposed act the civil service commission may call for the head of the department, and may ask for the production of such books and papers, and may call for such witnesses as the commission in its wisdom may deem necessary; but if it is the intention of the drafters of this provision to enable the accused to ap- pear in his own defense, why, then, that right should be expressly reserved in specific language in the draft itself. Now, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the present law provides that for six months every person employed in the city who is drawn from the classified list is on probation; that during those six months the head of the department may remove him without assigning any cause whatever, the same as any private employer can now do, and I know of an instance in the building department recently where a certain man who was old in the service, and perhaps against whom no charges could be sustained before the commission, was peremptori- ly removed by the civil service commis- sion, on the reason of impaired ef- ficiency; yet it is probable in that case that the charges could not be sustained. Now, the heads of departments are vested with such discretion as that, and ought to be able to determine in six months whether a man is eligible. Now, Mr. Chairman, for years, ever since the national civil service law was enacted, there has been an effort on the part of the friends of civil service to change that section of the federal statute, which leaves that matter open, and which, while it provides careful qualifications for appointment to the civil service, it is practically no pro- tection to those persons after they have been appointed. Mr. Roosevelt, back in 1887, in an article which appeared when the ques- tion was before the United States Sen- ate, deplored the fact that the federal governcent left this back door open, and, in substance, said that it intended to emasculate the civil service law; and such was the contention of Henry February 22 9 76 1907 Cabot Lodge and other persons on the floor of the United States Senate. Now, one of the greatest friends of civil service in this country was the late John W. Eaton, and it was due to him more than to any other man that the present law was enacted; and it is regarded today by the friends of civil service throughout the country that the civil service law now in operation and in force in the City of Chicago is the best civil service law that this coun- try has ever had. It has been copied by other cities. I have taken occasion to talk with the different men who are now and who have in the past occupied the position of civil service commis- sioners of this city, and, without one exception, every one of them regard any impairment in the present act in Section 12, regarding removals and re- ductions, as a serious blow to civil service. Now, right at this time, while civil service is still on trial, and while it is not at all certain in the minds of many that the administration of the civil service law is not all that it should be, it is a somewhat general opinion. I believe that every member of this Con- vention thinks that the law is being honestly applied, and honestly and in- telligently enforced. At the same time, it seems inopportune at this time, upon the eve of a possible change of ad- ministration, which is always possible at every mayoralty election, that a change of this kind should be asked for; and I do not wish to indicate that there will be any change so far as the complexion of the political administra- tion is concerned THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman may save his point. MR. McGOORTY: But I do say, gentlemen, with all seriousness, that notwithstanding the fact that there have been protracted trials — still, I do think you will agree with me that the effect of those trials has been to in- crease confidence in civil service. And, after all, why shouldn’t a man in this country, especially one who is employed in the public service, be given the op- portunity to appear in his own defense? Now, why should not that right be ex- pressly reserved for him? We know that such person who has been dis- charged goes forth handicapped; that he goes forth handicapped and bearing a certain stigma upon him. It makes it more difficult for him to obtain pri- vate employment, if it can be said, as a matter of public record, that he has been discharged for cause. Now, before that final discharge takes place, if he has been unjustly dis- charged, and if it has been due to con- sideration of politics, or religion, or consideration of race, then you should give him an opportunity to appear in his own defense. He has passed the probationary period; he has passed the examination, and he is presumably fit and competent in accordance with the genius of our institutions, and the American sense of fair play, you should give him at least a chance to be heard. But, above all, give this civil service law, which is undoubtedly the best that has ever been devised — give it a trial, and do not make a step which, I am confident, will be regarded by this community, and by all people, as a step backward, and a blow at civil service itself. MR. FISHER: I do not understand exactly what the question is before the house — if there is a question before the house — because both of the last speak- ers have been talking to a different point than that raised by the motion of Mr. Robins. THE CHAIRMAN: That is the question before the house. MR. FISHER: As a matter of /act, the motion made by Mr. Robins differs only from the proposition that is be- fore the house, that is recommended by the committee, and in which it puts February 22 977 1907 the burden of proof on the person dis- charged, to establish his rights to a trial. The present draft, the draft of the committee, provides that he shall have a right to a trial. The language used is precisely the same as that used in the law, and unquestionably is subject to the same interpretation. The word 1 1 investigation ’ ’ is a word under which the right of trial was given under the common law. MR. POST: Do you refer only to the practice of the commission? MR. FISHER: No; I refer to the question of the courts, the question that has gone up from the commission, or, rather, the appeals that have brought it into the courts proper, have been con- strued to mean a trial, and I do not understand that there is any difference in that regard between the law as it now stands, the report of the committee or the proposition of Mr. Robins. The three propositions are exactly the same on that point. There is a difference, so far as the law of the state, as it now stands, in which the commission, under the recommendations of the com- mittee does not have to give a trial unless the discharged employe requests it, which, as Mr. Linehan says, tends to good government. There is no ne- cessity for putting the discharged em- ploye in the embarrassing position of saying he did not want trial. Under this law, as I understand it, he would simply have to ask for a trial, and that trial would be accorded him. Now, Mr. Robins’ proposition, as I understand it, shifts the burden of proof, and compels the employe to es- tablish the innocence of the charges, or his right to removal. Now, on this whole matter, it seems to me that there is a general misconception on ,the part of certain gentlemen. I do not know that it is necessary for me to defend my position in the matter of civil service. If so, I can show the necessary credentials. When the state civil service law was presented to the legislature I was the representative of the state, and the local committee and the committee of the Union League Club all took action on this matter; and I think it was the unanimous decision — there may have been some differences — but, certainly, the full organization that took an ac- tive part from this neighborhood in the promotion of the state civil serv- ice law ; all agreed upon this propo- sition, that the right to discharge should be left open in the appointing power. Now, those that are familiar with the history of civil service well know that there has been a steady development along that line. Mr. McGoorty cites the opinion from Mr. Roosevelt back in 1887. Mr. Roosevelt was a state and national civil service commissioner, and as President has very much strength- ened the application of the civil service rules in the national government. It is his conviction, as I understand his at- titude on this question, and many others, and the position of Mr. Gar- field, who succeeded him later on the civil service commission, that the right of discharge should be left open, and that the only thing that should exist in that connection would be the right of the civil service commission in each case to inquire into the discharge of an employe, and if the commission was satisfied that he was being improperly discharged, to order him back on the roll. But that is the limit. Now, the law started the other way. The truth of the matter was that a lot of people thought that the civil service reform was to be a panacea for all of our political ills, and they thought it would be a panacea for all of the at- tendant political difficulties, and they felt if we could just have a written and an oral examination, on questions February 22 978 1907 asked, that if somebody passed at the head of the list, that he was, therefore, going to make a perfect addition and a valuable addition to the government of the city or the county, or whatever it might. Now, there are many questions which cannot be tried out by examination, either oral or written. The institution of competitive examinations for civil service appointments is merely the best available device for making those ap- pointments and discharges. It is mere- ly better than any other system that has been adopted. It has been found, and it must be conceded that it had been demonstrated that it is better than the old spoils system of appointment, or of any sys- tem of appointment for purely political purposes; that is, when it is confined to those principles to which it is proper- ly delegated, and that is all that can be claimed for it, and that is all that ought to be claimed for it. Now, Mr. O’Donnell arises, as he al- ways does, with a certain amount of in- dignation about the ills of some indi- vidual. He is very much enthused over somebody being left with a foul stain, and he regards this in the nature of a trial held in the criminal court. Now, that is not the way the matter should be regarded for a moment. We all know that there are a large number of things which relate to these matters of public service that cannot be specified and proved, and ought not to be specified and proved. If the head of a department believes that a man in his employ is dishonest, if he believes or is morally convinced that he is guilty of peculation, theft or any other thing that is dishonest, must he wait util he is absolutely sure that he has committed a theft before he can discharge him? If the head of a department believes that a certain employe is inefficient, must he wait until he can demonstrate that to the satisfaction of the board, before that man is discharged? Per- sonally, I say no. If you have an eligible list, and a man to fill the vacancy must be select- ed from that list, you have removed the chief cause of difficulty. I know that it is susceptible of abuse, but I also know that the opposite view is susceptible of greater abuse. When you have a situation where you must prove certain charges on a man, and where you must take a formal trial be- fore the civil service commission, as a commission, and where you have to drag before that commission the associates of the employes, the fellow employes of the man who is being discharged, and disorganize a department for days, and maybe weeks, as has been done sometimes — we have seen that done in this city time and time again — in order to prove that a man should be dis- charged from the public service, that is a greater evil than the other thing. Now, I am saying these things from the standpoint of a man who believes absolutely in the principles of civil service reform, but I say to you that all over this country, starting with the national commission of civil service re- form and going down to nearly every civil service commission in that state, that men who are officially connected with the advocacy of this policy, and associations formed to promote them, believe that this is the correct princi- ple to adopt. I don’t believe that. I think the present proceeding before the house doesn’t go that far. This proceeding or proposition that is be- fore the house merely changes the ex- isting law so that the employe must ask for an investigation, and allows the commission' to investigate, or to ap- point somebody else to investigate. I i see no objection whatever, if that is to j be the principle to be adopted, why Mr. McGoortv provided in that section I to which he alone talked with any February 22 979 1907 definiteness and specifically that be- fore the body appointed to make the investigation discharges the employe he shall be put on his own defense and put in his defense if he wants to. But, of course, that would never be raised were that right ever insisted upon. In the case of investigation, if he asks for an investigation he has the right to be called in his own defense if he wants to. I cannot see any reason why, if, as a matter of fact, anybody believes that, that proposition should not be inserted, that involves the ques- tion invoked by Mr. O’Donnell. It does not go as far as the present civil service laws in this country. MR. GREENACRE: Mr. Chairman, may I ask: Is it the effect of Mr. Rob- ins’ amendment to shift the burden of proof on to the accused? MR. FISHER: I so understand it. MR. ROBINS: That is so, Mr. Chair- man. That is the object of the amend- ment. MR. GREENACRE: That is to say, then, that if he fails to prove that the officer did wrong in removing him he stands out. MR. FISHER: Yes, if he fails to prove that he stands out. That can be remedied by inserting that he shall be heard in his own defense if anybody has any doubt of that right. MR. GREENACRE: I want to say a word in regard to that question of public service, the front and the back of it. I think they both ought to be guarded. I do not think I am entirely visionary or a theorist, or out of accord with persons who are interested in these questions, or have interested themselves in the civil service in taking that position. It is assumed that an officer ought to have a right to dis- charge an employe that has demoralized a department; but when the fact ex- ists that it is probable that the political power that the head of a department would have over an employe by reason of his ability to remove or by reason of the burden being shifted on to the employe to prove a removal improper, it would be a greater evil than it is at present to have the burden on the head of the department to say that the man should not be retained. In other words, I mean an employe of the public serv- ice will say: “I know, and you know very well, that the head of a depart- ment can remove me in a moment. I know further, under this amendment, that if I am removed I will have to show that the head of that department has’ had an ulterior and improper mo- tive.” That is the exact object of the amendment. Now, then, how can I show that the head of a department had an ulterior or improper motive by proving nega- tively that I never was a horsethief? By proving negatively and going through the category of the command- ments that I have not been guilty of any one of them; by covering my life from beginning to end to show that there cannot be any cause. Is it not for the man accusing me to specify how and in what I am wrong; why I can’t be retained, and why I was removed? Otherwise, where is my security? If I am to establish that he had a wrong motive, how can I do it except by trav- eling through the whole list of good things and bad things and proving my- self in every particular to be good. AVhy, it seems to me it is the height of ridiculousness for a man to allege things in that way. He is fired — to use a modern expression — unless he can call upon the head of a department to show his motive in a particular thing. He stands expelled from the service, if you please, unless he will bring an accusing and counter-charge against the head of the department and prove it. If he fails in that he will stand out; he will have gone from the service. I don’t think that even in the interests of civil service we ought to go up against February 22 980 1907 that — if I may use that expression — the inherited wisdom of the ages com- ing down to us to protest against that. It says that an accuser, that an accu- sation shall be made specifically and sus- tained, and the burden is upon the ac- cuser and never upon the accused. T don’t think I ought to be compelled to fight shadows, and, what is more, in the public service I don’t think an em- ploye should be compelled continually to fight shadows. I don’t think it will be for the good of the department. MR. ROSENTHAL: May I be per- mitted to say just a word in reply to the last speaker? I have spoken once before on this question. (Cries of “Leave!”) THE CHAIRMAN : By unanimous consent. MR. ROSENTHAL: A reading of this section will show that this section simply means that it makes it more specific than the law is at the present time, and is to that extent in the in- terest of the employe; at the same time it raises no question about the burden of proof, as the old law did. The old law gave the man the right to appear in his own defence in the manner in which he did, and the manner in which he did it was by almost universal con- struction construed in this way, that the burden of proof was upon the em- ployer and not upon the employe. Now, the law as drafted at the present time leaves that question open to suit the particular case, and at the same time provides that written charges must be filed and specifications made, and it also specifies the number of days within which the answer shall be made. Now, let us look at the civil service law for a minute. The whole reason for its existence, the whole reason for bringing it into being was that it was contended that our civil service was like the service of any business, like the service of any large business, that a man should be selected not for polit- ical reasons, but for reasons of merit, and on tests of merit. Now, what is the use of having it likened, having civil service likened to a criminal procedure, or likened — the civil service law likened — to the operation of the law in the criminal court. If we have the civil service law, let us liken it to some large business. Would you, if you wanted to discharge several employes in your business — say it was a large, extensive business — tolerate that we should have, or that you should have, the sort of a trial which we have at the present time, conducted along crim- inal lines, have a man proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? It is not a question of guilt or innocence, but it is a question of efficiency and inef- ficieicy, and you cannot prove a man inefficient in the same way that you can prove a man guilty of murder be- yond a reasonable doubt. It seems to me it is absolutely sense- less to have that sort of an investiga- tion, to have the sort of investigation that we are having at times now. Now, the last speaker has spoken along the same lines and in the same trend, and one of the great difficulties is that usually the most incompetent man who is about to be discharged will retain an astute lawyer like Mr. Green- acre, who will consult Greenleaf on Evidence, and Whigmore on Evidence, and bring in a dozen volumes of Illi- nois Reports to show what evidence is admissible and what evidence is not admissible, and then the man is tried before a commission of three, only one of whom is a lawyer. MR. GREENACRE: He doesn’t have to be a lawyer. All you have to have is common sense. MR. ROSENTHAL: Does that go to the question of efficiency, or does it go to the question of Mr. Greenacre’s bril- liancy before that commission? And very often we find instead of the employe being on trial, as a matter of February 22 981 1907 fact it is the employer or the depart- ment head and not the employe who is on trial. This fact must be borne in mind, that no law will work well irre- spective of the persons who are going to put the law into effect. We always will in the last analysis have to rely upon our commission. We will always have in the last analysis to rely on the mayor and the heads of departments. You cannot frame a law which will work well automatically. Hence, we have to look after our commissioners and after our heads of departments, and that was the purpose of putting in this law, and the purpose of extending the term of the commissioner to six years, so that no one mayor during his term can control the appointment of that full commission. We have seen in this city wholly in- efficient civil service commissions, and those commissions have made forces of trials and those commissions have dis- charged employes who ought not to have been discharged. But that was not the fault of the law; it was the fault of the commission. Therefore, gentlemen and Mr. Chairman, I contend that this draft of the present law ought to stand. MR. WERNO: Mr. Rosenthal, I would like to ask you a question: Is there a civil service law in force now anywhere that gives the appointing power the right to remove the em- ploye? MR. ROSENTHAL: Yes, sir; as a matter of fact, Mr. Werno, our law giv- ing the form of trial which it does, is an exception to almost every civil serv- ice law in the country, and it is called the “ Chicago System.” MR. POST: It seems to me that Mr. Rosenthal’s argument might be very strongly applied to the proposition that there should be no civil service merit system at all. The business house analogy leads directly to that conclu- sion. It is quite true that business houses would not expect to put men on trial and give them any kind of a hear- ing in legal form, and it is also true that a business house would not put a man on examination by the commission before it was determined whether he would come in or not. MR. FISHER: Many of them do. MR. POST: The point I wish to make is that the system of public em- ployment that is radically different from our system is advocated. The evil that was framed by the civil service laws we are trying to bring here is the mixing of politics with the efficient ad- ministration of matters public with matters that are political. It was found that men were appointed for political reasons, and not for others, and that they were dismissed for political rea- sons, and not for others; and I have understood that some very good men have been appointed and dismissed on those grounds. I can recall — very dim- ly, it is true — but can recall that even Republican administrations have been known to appoint men for political rea- sons and dismiss them for political rea- sons, and, of course, the Democrats al- ways have. Now, Mr. Chairman, there has been a motion here, and it has been mentioned that there are two doors to the civil service employment — one is the en- trance door and the other is the exit door. Some civil service men and Mr. Fisher, as I understand, are defending that position favoring a strict guarding of the entrance door and leaving the other open. Some, I believe, advocate leaving the entrance door open and guarding the other. It seems to me, if you are going to leave either door open, it is better to guard — it is better to leave the entrance door open and guard the exit door; and it is, I think, of the highest degree of importance that when men are in the civil service that they should not feel that they have to be looking for political fences all the time, they should feel when they are in February 22 982 1907 there that the 3 r can only be put out upon civil service grounds, not upon polit- ical grounds, or grounds that are kin- dred politically. On the question of trial, which is the point immediately under consideration here, I disagree utterly with the gentle- man who placed in analogy to that a trial upon criminal charges, or even a property right trial. There is no ques- tion of property right involved here or civil rights. No employe has any property right in his office; no employe has any property right in his employ- ment; nor is there any civil right in- volved. The question is absolutely a question of the efficiency of the serv- ice, and what we want is a system where we can guard the efficiency of the service both as to admission and expulsion from the service. I sup- pose the only way is to avoid politics in the appointment in the first place, so that when an employe comes in he will feel safe and not be obliged to lay his political fences then. Now, I understand that objection has been raised to the law when an attempt is made to bring a man before the com- mission. When the ease is before the commission a man is charged with an offense; that is, a man from whom prop- erty is to be taken, and who is inter- ested, that the case must be made out against him. Mr. Robins proposes, on the other hand, that there should be the right of removal for no other than civil service reasons, and that a statement shall be made in writing of the specific grounds of removal, and that it shall not operate as to removal unless the person removed objects to it, and that he shall then specify his grounds of ob- jection and for a trial, and that the burden should be on him to show that he is removed for other than civil serv- ice reasons. It seems to me that it would be per- fectly easy for a man if he were re- moved for political or kindred reasons to show that he was removed for other than civil service reasons, and that it is proper not to put the burden upon him for many reasons, ones that would be avoided in case of trial, and a man who knows that he should be re- moved would not be very apt to demand a trial, because it would seem feasible to him that the head of the department would be able to make out a prima facie case. But when a man who knew he had been removed for political rea- sons, or been removed for other than civil service reasons, would be easily able to prove that he had been re- moved for other than civil service rea- sons, and that man could make his stand before the proper commission at a trial and prove that he had been dismissed for other than civil service reasons. Now, it is for that reason, Mr. Chair- man, that I am in favor of Mr. Robins ’ motion, or Mr. Robin’s amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question on Mr. Robin’s amend- ment? MR. BURKE: As a substitute for Mr. Robins’ motion, I desire to offer the present act of the present law, Sec- tion 12. I haven’t it here, but it is a redraft — that the committee redraft the present section of the present civil service law in the City of Chicago, not a state law. On that subject I would just like to say a word. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Burke moves as a substitute for the entire matter that Section 12, the present act relating to removals, the present act in the present civil service law, be substi- tuted for the one as printed. MR. BURKE: I do not wish to take up the time of the Convention to speak upon this matter for any length of time. It has been threshed out pretty thor- oughly. I can remember my friend, Mr. Fisher, down at the civil service com- mittee; I remember his being before the civil service committee at Spring- field, of which I had the pleasure of February 22 983 1907 being a member; and I can also remem- ber men of considerable public spirit promoting a law similar to this; and I can also look back to 1895, when the late John H. Hamline spent the greater part of his time passing the present law. This law could not pass that legis- lature, and the late Mr. Hamline, to whom general credit is given on ac- count of the present law, was com- pelled, in order that this law might pass, to have it submitted to the peo- ple of the City of Chicago and every other city which wished to adopt the same law. The law was submitted to the people of Chicago, and up to the present time it has been in effect. I have listened patiently for a real argu- ment, warranting any change in the present law. It is true enough that certain gentlemen have taken the floor and said: “Well, if the head of the department cannot run his department, he has no control whatever. He has not the ability to discipline his men.” We have been going on some twelve or fourteen years under the present law, and not an instance has been pointed out by any member of this Convention as a reason why a change should be made. I am as honest and sincere as any gentleman taking the floor in behalf of the motion of Mr. Rosenthal, or the other gentleman, Mr. Robins. I be- lieve, gentlemen, in protecting, in so far as we can, a faithful employe. I do not feel — and it makes little differ- ence to me whether any change is made in this building April next — I am not making a living from politics — but I can say, if there is any change in this building, that the men performing the services for the people in this building, and for the people outside of this build- nig, should be protected. I believe that the only way in which they can be protected is to tie the hands of the man that may be elected mayor. T feel that that should be so, that we should tie the hands of the head of the department and not let the next mayor of the City of Chicago build up a ma- chine legalized by the gentlemen or in- dorsed by you and legalized by the legislature. I believe in a square deal, as the President of the United States has said, a square deal for all, is only fair to these people who are devoting their en- ergy and their time to us, the people. What harm has ever come from a public hearing? Is it not a fact that the pub- lic hearings before the Civil Service Commissioners of the City of Chicago have been the cause, — one of the causes, at least, for the good administration of the civil service and the fact that the people of Chicago have an opportunity of knowing what is doing, so to speak. Now, is it fair to take the heads of the departments into the back room of the mayor ’s office and say, 1 1 Smith or Jones failed to carry his precinct yes- terday, he is inefficient. Brown carried his. Let us substitute Brown for Smith”? I submit, gentlemen, in all fairness, without taking up any further time of this convention, that the motion I made should be adopted. MR. YOUNG: Just a word. It seems to me that most of the speakers are losing sight of the important question in this matter, and that is good public service; by providing an examination, we probably have the best method of secur- ing employes in the first instance, and that does away with the political spoils system. A man enters the service, and if he is in the service for six months we can then tell whether he should be retained or discharged. If he becomes a perma- nent employe and afterwards becomes in- competent there is authority given for the head of the department to remove j him, and in removing him he must file written charges specifically setting forth I the cause for which he is removed; then February 22 984 1907 he has an opportunity to reply, if he i wants to, and justice has been done him ; and again upon written request for an investigation the commission must investigate. It ought to be a very easy matter, if the specific charges are un- true, for the employe to be able to prove that. 1 think, therefore, that Mr. Rob- ins ’ motion, added to the other parts of the section as drawn, is eminently fair in every particular and will work out justice both to the public service and to the employe, and I think that his motion ought to prevail. MR. MERRIAM: This report of the committee as it now comes to us is in itself really a compromise. The provis- ions of the civil service law for Cook county as worked out by the representa- tive conference provided that the com- missioner — that the commission, in its discussion investigate any removal or re- duction, and shall investigate only in such cases where it has reason to believe that there is some good cause for investi- gation. In other words, the 1905 Cook county law provides that the commission may or may not, in its discretion, investi- gate a particular case of removal, but by no means requires in any case such in- vestigation shall be made. That Cook county civil service law was considered again this year at the representative con- ference, composed of men like Mr. Ed- gar L. Bancroft, Merritt Starr, Western Starr, Edgar Tolman, Mr. Eckhart, Mr. Handy, and others of the Cook county civil service commission. They recommend that the civil service commission should under no circum- stances, be required to institute inves- tigations against its own will — merely that they might make an investigation if they saw fit in their discretion. That is the principle adopted by universities, and that is the principle adopted by the Illinois civil service laws and the Wis- consin civil service laws. Neither re- quire any investigation ; they leave it to the option of the board or the commis- sion, if they see fit to investigate. They do not denfand that they make an in- vestigation. I think Mr. Young pointed out that the bill under consideration in this case recommends in the interests of the employe, and the interests of the public, the commission, in order to secure efficiency of service and to have a guarantee and check, should do this. The thing Mr. Burke refers to, that a man may be put out because he doesn’t carry the district, or simply will be put in because he carries the district, is not applicable, because the obvious objection is that the man must be able to qualify, and if he is not qualified he cannot get in. If he doesn’t pass the examination, and pass it first, he doesn’t get the po- sition. That seems to me to be a suffi- cient safeguard against ruthless inter- ference and unfair removal of city em- ployes. On the other hand, as the old law now stands, you have very serious dan- ger that the service is retained by men who are ‘ i safe”; they are safe in what? That they cannot be removed. Under that principle we are apt to perpetuate an inefficiency. (Cries of question.) THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon Mr. Robins’ — MR. POST: Mr. President, I wish to make a request as to the order of voting. Unless we adopt a certain line of voting, we shall not bring out the real sense of the convention. I ask that Mr. Rob- ins’ motion be put first for that rea- son; that Mr. Robins’ motion be put first, and Mr. Burke ’s motion as a substitute for the draft. Mr. Robins ’ proposition should be put first, as that is a radical change in both, and then the best sense of the convention will be obtained. I think you should proceed in that order. > MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman? THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal. February 22 985 1907 For what purpose did Mr. Rosenthal arise ? MR. ROSENTHAL: Let me suggest something in reference to Mr. Robins’ motion before you decide that. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal, you have discussed the question. MR. ROSENTHAL : I don ’t want to discuss it, but after consultation with the gentlemen, including Mr. Robins and Mr. Young, Mr. Robins is willing to with- draw his motion and have inserted after the word “investigation” in the 16th line, No. 12: “In the course of which any such person sought to be removed, shall be given an opportunity to be heard. ’ ’ Now, that presents the whole matter before the convention; that brings the whole matter before the house, and it seems to me, if it is so amended, it will be satisfactory to most everybody, and we can all vote on that first. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Burke’s amendment has the right of way, unless he cares to waive his right of way. The chair will be willing to do that in regard to the roll call. MR. BURKE : I will waive my right of way as far as the roll call is concerned to allow Mr. Robins’ motion. MR. POST: If Mr. Robins’ motion is changed in that way, I will withdraw my request. (Cries of question.) THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? MR. RITTER: Mr. Chairman, just one moment. So we may vote intelli- gently, that last amendment, does that provide merely that the employes shall be — after he is discharged, shall have the right to appear personally, or does it mean that he shall have the right to present his side of the case? As the law is now, it provides that he shall have the right to present his side of the case. Does this provide that he shall have the right to be personally there and appear in his own behalf? MR. ROBINS: There is no doubt about that; there is no doubt about that. THE CHAIRMAN : As many as vote in favor of Mr. Robins’ amendment, sig- nify same by saying aye — MR. RITTER: As changed by Mr. Rosenthal? THE CHAIRMAN: As changed by Mr. Rosenthal. As many as favor Mr. Robins’ amendment as changed by Mr. Rosenthal, signify by saying aye; op- posed, no. It is carried. The question now is upon Mr. Burke ’s substitute for the entire matter, and up- on that the secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Burke, Greenacre, McGoorty, McKinley, Ritter, Zimmer — 6. Nays — Badenoch, Bennett, Brosseau, Cole, Dixon, G. W., Dixon, T. J., Eck- hart, B. A., Eckliart, J. W., Eidmann, Fisher, Gansbergen, Guerin, Hill, Hunter, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, Merriam, Michaelis, O’Donnell, Owens, Post, Raymer, Robins, Rosenthal, Seth- ness, Shepard, Snow, Taylor, Yopicka, Werno, White, Young — 34. MR. BADENOCH: Mr. Chairman, I desire to inquire how I am recorded on this vote. THE SECRETARY: Badenoch, aye. MR. BADENOCH: I want to vote no on Mr. Burke’s motion. THE SECRETARY: Badenoch, no. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon Mr. Burke’s motion, the yeas are 6 and the nays 34. The motion is lost. The secretary will continue reading by numbers. MR. BADENOCH: Mr. Chairman, I desire to propose an amendment to sec- tion 12 : “ Such suspension shall be with- out pay, provided, however, that said commission, in case of a disapproval, may direct that pay shall be restored. ’ ’ It seems to me that this might be made a means by some head of a department to persecute some disliked employe, and it seems to me that it is quite proper that in case that a man does prove the charges against the head of a depart- ment, that the pay should be restored, and February 22 986 1907 I move that the word ‘ 1 may ’ ’ shall be changed to “shall”. THE CHAIRMAN : What is that mo- tion? MR. BADENOCH: “Such suspension shall be without pay, provided, however, that said commission, in case of a dis- approval, shall direct that pay shall be restored. ’ ’ MR, McGOORTY : Mr. Chairman, I wish to rise to a point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the point of order? MR. McGOORTY : As I understand it, the motion of Mr. Robins is now be- fore the house for consideration. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion of Mr. Robins is carried. MR. McGOORTY: Very well. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that is a provision that is desirable. The point raised by Alder- man Badenoch would be passed upon by the commission, and would naturally be passed upon by the commission. What in a great many cases we now encounter is where the council is called upon and ordered to pay a man during suspension. I think there is a provision in the charter as printed, and I move that the provisions stand as printed. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard Alderman Bennett’s motion. All those in favor of the same signify the same by saying aye; opposed, no. Carried. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment, that the draft- ing committee in this act, fix the num- ber of the commission, as provided for — THE CHAIRMAN: What is that again, please? MR. SHEPARD: That the drafting committee fix the number of the civil ser- vice commission. You must provide for the appointment of a civil service com- mission before you have civil service. MR. ROBINS: That is in another section. MR. SHEPARD: Another section, you say? MR. FISHER : The first section pro- vides that. MR. SHEPARD: No, it does not. This is a matter that doesn ’t require any discussion. MR. FISHER : Mr. Chairman, there is a provision in regard to the appoint- ment. MR. SHEPARD: No, there is not. MR. FISHER: Page 72, Article YI, section 3. It is expressly provided for there that they shall be appointed by the mayor — MR. SHEPARD: That is ambiguous. It does not refer to the civil service com- mission at all. MR. BURKE: Let us find out some- thing about that. MR, FISHER: I don’t know where there is any ambiguity in it, if the gen- tleman will hear it read; I cannot see any ambiguity in it. It says : ‘ ‘ All officers of the city, except as expressly otherwise provided, shall be appointed by the mayor. ’ ’ I don ’t see how you can twist that into any ambiguity. MR. SHEPARD : But there is no such office. MR. FISHER : It expressly says, ‘ ‘ all officers of the city”. THE CHAIRMAN: The chair doesn’t see any reason for debate. It won ’t hurt it if it is put in the charter that the mayor shall appoint, and the num- ber shall be provided for. MR. SHEPARD: I object to having so much interruption while I have the floor. This seems to be a trivial matter. You must provide for the appointment of a civil service commission, if we are going to have civil service ; I therefore move that the drafting committee ap- point or provide for the number and the manner of appointing such commission. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any ob- jection? MR. HUNTER : I second the motion. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor of the motion say aye; opposed, no. I It is carried. February 22 987 1907 MR, SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman, I move to amend by striking out the edi- tor’s notes at the end of sections 9 and 10 and 34 and 37, as misleading, use- less and harmful in their operations. MR. SHANAHAN: I second the mo- tion. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the mo- tion? MR. SHEPARD: Amend by striking out the editor’s notes at the end of sec- tions 9 and 10 and 34 and 37. Nine is a sort of caption. It is evidently a cap- tion for the guidance of the committee, from the words of the statutes of the state. Thirty-four is unnecessary, those words. MR. FioHER : But you want them all out, don’t you? THE CHAIRMAN: 1 understand they are supposed to be out. If there is no objection, in the second print they will be dropped. MR. RITTER: Does this law, this section 6, provide a method by which an employe may be retained in the service during the investigation of his case? THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal, there is a question asked you of your committee. MR. ROSENTHAL: I didn’t hear that. MR. RITTER: Does this law, as now drafted, prevent the retention of an em- ploye in the service pending investiga- tion of his case ? As I read it now, sus- pension is required. Now, that works a hardship on the public funds, as we have had experience in the board of edu- cation where an employe has been sus- pended during trial and later on has been found to be innocent, and in the mean- time another employe has held the same position, we have been required to pro- vide double pay. That has been signifi- cant. In such cases it has almost inva- riably been a temporary employe has been employed and not a man from the classified list. You can very readily see that a man would not give up a regular job to take a temporary position. The question is, will this require in every case double pay? I think the way I read it, it does. I think if the law is so framed the present drafting commit- tee can very readily prepare something to take care of that condition. MR. BENNETT: That is a point to be passed on on Alderman Badenoch ’s motion. MR. RITTER : I do not so under- stand it. MR. BENNETT : The motion pro- vides that a man shall be paid during the time of suspension. MR. RITTER: That takes care of the man, but I want to take care of the public funds. There are occasions where charges are brought against a public offi- cer, and we have had them in the board of education, where charges are made and found to be unfounded, and the em- ployes put back with pay. I think the law should provide some way that in- vestigations should be had and the em- ploye allowed to remain at work during that time. THE CHAIRMAN : Isn ’t that within the power of the civil service commis- sion? MR. ROSENTHAL: This does not make suspension compulsory, but this provides that if it is found necessary to suspend in order not to demoralize the service of the department, that that man should not be in the service, and if there is reason for his removal, if it would be demoralizing for the service to retain that man in his position during that time, that power be given to sus- pend the appointment. MR. FISHER: Where is that? MR. ROBINS: It says li notice of such suspension ’ ’. MR. FISHER : It doesn ’t say any place he may be suspended. There is an implication he may be suspended. On the other point Mr. Ritter makes, I do not think has been answered. February 22 988 1907 MR. BURKE : Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman to refer to page 81, section 12: “Such suspension shall be without pay; provided, however, that said commission, in case of a disapproval, may direct that pay shall be restored. ’ ’ MR. RITTER: Which is always the case; or it is usual, if not always the case, where a man is found not guilty THE CHAIRMAN: That question has been passed upon, Mr. Ritter, by this convention. MR. ROBINS: No, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: If the chair could get this variety of questions he would be more correct. MR. ROBINS: Mr. Chairman, I move you that the drafting committee be so instructed to so draft this section that the appointing officer shall have power either to suspend or not, during — pend- ing the charges and trial. MR. ROBINS: Here is the case of a janitor against whom there is no com- plaint as to his work. So far as he is a janitor, he is a good janitor, and there is no cause for removal, but so far as the children in the school are concerned there may be cause for removal. It is necessary to substitute a man for him. The man would have to be substituted on Salary, and the salary of the other man would go on at the same time. This extra cost is in my opinion unwise. THE CHAIRMAN; All those in fa- vor of Mr. Robins’ motion signify the same by saying aye; those opposed, no. It is carried. Proceed. Mr. Lathrop has an amend- ment. MR. LATHROP: Mr. Chairman, be- fore the second amendment is passed on I wish to have an amendment read which I have handed up to the clerk ’s table. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. La- throp: Amend section 11 of article 7 by inserting the words “superintendent of parks ’ ’ after the word * 1 schools ’ ’, in the fourth line. THE CHAIRMAN: That exempts the superintendent of the parks from the operation of the civil service law, I believe. MR. LATHROP: Yes. As I under- stood the chairman of the rules and pro- cedure committee, he is in favor of this. It is evident that the park commission- ers should be allowed to select the best men to be found in the country for the very important position of superin- tendent of parks; as important as it is for the school board to be free to select a superintendent of schools and teach- ers. I therefore move the adoption of this amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion. All those in favor signify the same by saying aye ; opposed, no. It is carried. The secretary will pro- ceed. THE SECRETARY: Page 82, 13. MR. J. W. ECKHART: I would like to have this section read. I have an amendment to it which I should like to have read. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. J. W. Eckhart: page 81, 5th line, section 11, after the word ‘ 1 city ’ ’, strike out the words “members of the law depart- ment. ’ ’ THE CHAIRMAN: This brings the law department under the civil service. MR. J. W. ECKHART: Some of the ideas of the council conference commit- tee have been talked of here, and they have placed another bill that the so- called assistant state’s attorneys should be put under the civil service. There is no reason I know of that the city law department should be exempted, un- less lawyers are different from any other profession. There is no reason why the lawyers should not be perfectly willing to come under it as the physicians. There is no reason why the law department should not be under the civil service. MR. COLE : I have been sitting here all these days listening to one or the other of you making exemptions in the February 22 989 1907 civil service law, and now I am glad to be able to vote in favor of adding something. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor of the motion — MR. ROSENTHAL: I don’t know what the method would be here, but I think the lawyers who have had practical experience in this matter — I * think it would be a mistake to put all the mem- bers of the law department under civil service. It may be that upon investiga- tion we might approve that the clerks in the office might be, but hardly the persons at the head of the department. I do not believe they are quite suited for it. MR. J. W. ECKHART: The head of the department should be. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? (Cries of “Question”.) THE CHAIRMAN: All those who favor the proposition of Mr. J. W. Eck- hart, placing the members of the law department under civil service, will sig- nify the same by saying aye; those op- posed, no. MR. RAYMER: Roll call. THE CHAIRMAN: The secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Brosseau, Cole, Eckhart, J. W., Greenacre, Linehan, Post, Ritter, Shan- ahan, Shepard, Snow — 10. Nays — Badenoch, Beebe, Bennett, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eidmann, Fisher, Gansbergen, Guerin, Hill, Hunter, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, McGoorty, Merriam, Michaelis, O ’Donnell, Owens, Raymer, Robins, Rosenthal, Sethness, Taylor, Vopicka, White, Young, Zimmer —28. (During roll call.) MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman, I should be in favor of the law clerks being placed under civil service, but not putting the people who assist the cor- poration counsel or the city attorney. I do not believe they are proper persons for that operation. I think that the board under the classification could de- termine that, and should determine the men you exempt in every department. That principle could not be put in any such broad form as this proposition pro- vides. I therefore vote no. MR. GREENACRE: If the examina- tions of the civil service department are not calculated to find out which is the best lawyer, they ought to change the examinations. I vote aye. MR. SHANAHAN: Mr. Chairman, it might be proper to exempt all lawyers from voting on this question. THE CHAIRMAN: The chair can- not agree with the gentleman ’s views on the disfranchisement of the lawyers. THE CHAIRMAN: The vote is 10 ayes and 28 nays, and the motion is lost. MR. ROSENTHAL: I move to in- sert after the words 1 1 members of the law department ”, “ excepting clerks, stenographers and investigators ’ ’.. THE CHAIRMAN : Do you offer that as an amendment? MR, ROSENTHAL; I do. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? All those in favor say aye ; those opposed, nay. The clerks, stenographers and investigators are ex- cepted. Now, are there any other objec- jections and amendments? THE SECRETARY: Page 82; 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 181, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37. THE CHAIRMAN: The section is adopted, as variously amended. MR. BADENOCH: I desire to call at- tention, for one moment, to the compen- sation of the civil service commissioner. Three thousand dollars a year, in my judgment that is entirely inadequate for the responsibility involved in the po- sition, and I move that that be changed to five thousand dollars. THE CHAIRMAN: Alderman Bad- enocli moves that the compensation of the civil service commission be raised February 22 990 1907 from three thousand dollars to five thou- sand dollars a year. Those in favor will signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. The motion is lost. MR. POST— Now, we should— MR. ZIMMER: I move 'we. adjourn. MR. POST: The motion to adjourn to 2 o ’clock — I move to adjourn to 2 o ’clock, but add a proviso that the room be warm. MR. SHEPARD: It seems to me, gen- tlemen, that we should continue here now in session, as long as necessary, for the entire day, and then adjourn finally. If we adjourn now for a couple of hours — MR. ROBINS; When did you eat your breakfast? MR. SHEPARD: You can wait a half an hour for lunch. I move you, Mr. Chairman, that we continue this session until half-past 1 o ’clock or 2 o ’clock, and adjourn until tomorrow at 10 o’clock, when we do adjourn. MR. COLE : Let us have an afternoon session. MR. FISHER : I think these extra- ordinary measures which are suggested, in regard to the sessions of this con- vention, ought to be preceded by some word of notice. We cannot, all of us, give our entire time all day and every day, to this particular proposition, and if we had some previous notice so that Ave could make our engagements con- form to the desire of the house, we might be able to do some of these extra- ordinary things. That is, as far as I am personally concerned, I cannot. Of course, there Will be, probably, a quorum ; but I cannot, myself, be here before 2 or 3 o ’clock. I have an engage- ment at 1 o ’clock and I do not think I can get here until 2 o’clock. THE CHAIRMAN: If the house will agree on when to adjourn I will put the motion. MR. YOPICKA: Monday at 2 o ’clock. THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, no. MR. YOPICKA: I move we adjourn — MR. YOUNG: I move you, Mr. Chair- man, that we adjourn to tomorrow at 2 o ’clock. MR. COLE: I move we adjourn to 2 o ’clock this afternoon. THE CHAIRMAN; Cannot we com- promise by meeting tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock? MR. POST: I move you as substi- tute the entire matter, and move that we adjourn to tomorrow at 10 o’clock. MR. VOP1CKA: There is a demo- cratic convention tomorrow morning. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a dem- ocratic conA 7 ention on? MR. YOPICKA: Yes. MR. G. W. DIXON: I move you we adjourn to tomorroAV at the hour of 2 o ’clock. THE CHAIRMAN: It has been moA r ed and seconded that the com'ention adjourn to tomorrow afternoon at 2 o ’clock ; as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye ; those opposed, no. The motion is carried. And the, convention stood adjourned to Saturday, February 23rd, 1907, at 2 o’clock p. m. 991 1907 February 22 Resolutions offered from the floor of the Convention. BY. MR. SHEPARD: Resolved, That in any act providing for the formation and disbursement of the police pension fund the following provision be incorporated: That the members of the police de- partment to be included in the bene- fits of such pension fund shall be as follows: The General Superintendent of Po- lice, Assistant General Superintendent of Police, Inspectors, Captains, Lieu- tenants, Sergeants, Patrolmen, Patrol Drivers, Superintendent Of Horses, Su- perintendent of Construction, Superin- tendent Bureau of Identification, As- sistant Superintendent Bureau of Iden- tification, Secretary of the Police De- partment, Private Secretary to the Gen- eral Superintendent of Police, Police Custodian Stolen Property, Chief Clerk Secretary’s office, Clerk in Secretary’s office, Chief Clerk in Detective Bu- reau, Chief Operator, Assistant Chief Operator, Operators, Drillmaster, Chief Matron, Matrons, Feed Inspector, De- partment Printer, Vehicle Inspectors, Photographer, Assistant Photographer, Stenographers, Supply Drivers, Finger Print Expert and such other mem- bers as may hereafter be provided for by ordinance. BY MR. BENNETT: Resolved, that the present laws re- lating to firemen’s pensions be retained and included in the charter. BY MR. BROWN: Permission shall not be given to any person to retail any goods, fruit or vegetables from a wagon or other vehicle. BY MR. SNOW: Amend proposition 1, Section 16, Pub- lic Utilities, by striking out all after the word “city” in line 11, and insert- ing in lieu thereof the following: “also to docks and wharves.” BY MR. SHEDD: Resolved, That in cases where a po- lice officer, in the actual discharge of his duty, is charged with an offense, such as murder, manslaughter, or other serious charge, or charges, that the Common Council shall appropriate a sufficient fund for attorney’s fees to the end that such officer shall be prop- erly ‘represented in court, and the truth of said allegations brought out. BY MR. VOPICKA: RESOLVED: That the City of Chi- cago be given power in condemnation proceedings to make the assessments for benefits payable in such number of annual installments as the City Coun- cil shall by ordinance determine, not to exceed twenty in number, and to issue bonds for the anticipation of such assessments payable out of the pro- ceeds of the collection thereof, and to sell such bonds at not less than par, for the creation of a special fund to be used in the payment of the awards for property taken or damaged through such condemnation proceedings. BY MR. VOPICKA: Resolved: That the City of Chicago shall have power to appropriate and set aside out of the moneys received through general taxation or from mis- cellaneous sources, as a special fund to be used only for the repair or re- pavement of such streets as have been February 22 992 1907 paved by special assessment since July 1, 1901, and such streets as shall here- after be so paved. BY MR. YOPICKA: Resolved: That the City of Chicago shall have power to create a special fund to be used for the purpose of guaranteeing the prompt payment at maturity of all special assessment bonds of the City of Chicago issued since January 1, 1903. BY MR. YOPICKA: Resolved: That the City of Chicago shall have power to levy assessments for improvements according to the pres- ent Special Assessment law with the lollowing amendment: In cases where the amount of an assessment for widening or opening of a street or streets exceeds the sum of $500,000, then the assessment is to be divided in the following manner: 10 per cent, of the amount to be levied on the property facing the streets where the improvement is made and 90 per cent, of the assessment to be levied pro rata on all the real estate property in Chicago. BY MR. PENDARYIS: Resolved, That the charter shall con- tain a provision preserving the integ- rity of prohibition districts established by ordinance of the city, and providing that the City Council shall have no power to modify or abolish any such prohibition district until the proposi- tion to so modify or abolish any such district shall, upon a petition of not less than 20 per cent, of the legal voters then residing within any such district, be submitted to and be ap- proved by a majority of all the legal voters residing within such prohibition district. BY MR. WERNO: Reconsider the vote by which para- graph 3, Section II, on page 593, pro- viding that “ members of the Board of Education shall serve without compen- sation’ J was passed for the purpose of submitting the following as a substi- tute for said paragraph: Paragraph 3. Section II. The members of the Board of Educa- tion shall be paid such compensation as the City Council may by ordinance provide. BY MR. BENNETT: Resolved, That the present pension laws relating to policemen be retained and included in the charter. BY MR. J. W. ECKHART: Resolved, That it is the sense of this Convention that the present pension law providing for a pension system of em- ployes of the Chicago Public Library be included in the proposed charter for the City of Chicago. BY MR. McCORMICK: The mayor shall, as often as yearly, and may as often as semi-annually, ap- point certified public accountants, to ex- amine and audit the accounts of the city, and the report thereof, together with any recommendation of such ac- countants, as to change in the business methods of the city, or of any of its de- partments, officers, or employes, shall be made to the mayor and City Coun- cil, and be spread upon the records of the latter. The expenses of such audit shall be paid by the city. Report of the COMMITTEE on MU- NICIPAL ELECTIONS, APPOINT- MENTS and TENURE of OFFICE: Lessing Rosenthal, Chairman Chicago Charter Convention: Gentlemen — Your Committee on Mu- nicipal Elections, Appointments and Tenure of Office, to which was referred February 22 993 1907 the subject of Civil Service, begs leave i to report: That the provisions of the present [ Civil Service Act shall be incorporated | in the charter with the following changes or additions: (1.) That the term of office of the Civil Service Commissioners shall be six (6) years, one to be appointed every two (2) years. (2.) Section -.-REMOVALS, RE- DUCTIONS AND SUSPENSIONS. No person shall be removed from the classi- fied civil service nor reduced in grade or compensation, except as hereinafter provided. Removals from the classified civil ser- vice or reduction in grade or compensa- tion, or both, may be made in any de- partment of such service by the appoint- ing power, to promote the efficiency of the service, or for other proper cause, in the manner following: The person sought to be removed shall be served with a copy of the order of removal and notice of suspension from such service and also written specifications; and such person shall have not less than three, nor more than seven days, to an- swer the same in writing. A copy of the order, specifications and answer, if any, shall be filed with the Civil Service Com- mission, which shall approve or disap- prove of such order. Said commission may, and upon the written request of the person sought to be removed, shall investigate any removal or reduction, or proposed removal or reduction, either by or before itself, or by or before some officer or board appointed by said com- mission, to conduct such investigation. Such suspension shall be without pay, provided, however, that said commission in case of a disapproval may direct that pay shall be restored. All findings and decisions by said commission, or of the investigating officer, or board, when ap- proved by said commission, shall be final, and shall be certified to the ap- pointing officer and shall be forthwith enforced by such officer. Reductions in grade or compensation, or both, shall be made in the like man- ner, as near as may be, but without sus- pension, pending such approval or dis- approval. A copy of said papers in each case shall be made a part of the record of the division of the service in which the removal or reduction is made. Nothing in this act shall limit the pow- er of any officer to suspend a subordi- nate without pay for cause assigned in writing, a copy of which shall be de- livered to such subordinate. Such sus- pension shall be for a reasonable period not exceeding thirty days, and any sus- pension may be investigated by said Civil Service Commission. In the course of any investigation provided for in this section, each member of the Civil Service Commission, or of any board so appointed by it, and any inves- tigating officer so appointed, shall have the power to administer oaths, and said commission shall have the power to se- cure by its subpoena both the attend- ance and testimony of witnesses, and the production of books and papers rele- vent to such investigation. Nothing in this section shall be con- strued to require charges or investiga- tions in the case of laborers. (3.) Section— .—PROMOTIONS. The commission shall, by its rules, provide for promotions in such classified service, and shall provide that vacancies shall be filled by promotion, in all cases where, in the judgment of the commis- sion, it shall be for the best interests of the service so to fill such vacancy. If, in the judgment of the commission, it is not for the best interests of the ser- vice to fill such vacancy by promotion, then such vacancy shall be filled by an original entrance examination; provi- ded, however, that the commission shall in its rules fix upon a credit based upon seniority and ascertained merit in ser- vice to be given to all employes in the February 22 994 1907 classified service in line of promotion who submit themselves to such original examination. All promotional examina- tions shall be limited to such members of the next lower rank or grade as de- sire to submit themselves to such exami- nation. The method of examination and the rules governing the same and the method of certifying in promotion shall be the same as provided for appli- cants for original appointment. Section — . — .No applicant for exami- nation for any office or place of employ- ment in said classified service shall wil- fully or corruptly, by himself or in co- operation with one or more other per- sons deceive the said commission with reference to his identity, or wilfully or corruptly make false representations in his application for such examination, or commit any fraud for the purpose of im- proving his prospects or chances in such examination. Bespectfully submitted, LESSING KOSENTHAL, Chairman. The following have been referred to the Law Committee: XII. EEVENTJE. BY MB. SHEPAKD: 12-1. The City Council of the City of Chicago shall annually in the first quar- ter of its fiscal year by ordinance levy a general tax on all real and personal property not exempt from taxation for all corporate purposes, including gen- eral city, school, park and library pur- poses, not exceeding in the aggregate, exclusive of the amounts levied for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, five per centum of the assessed value of the tax- able property of said city as assessed and equalized according to law for cor- porate purposes. The said City Council in its said annual levy shall specify the respective amounts levied for the pay- ment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, the amount levied for general city purposes, the amount levied for educational pur- poses, the amount levied for school building purposes, the amount levied for park purposes and the amount levied for library purposes. A certified copy of such ordinance shall be filed in the county clerk’s office. The county clerk shall extend upon the collector’s war- rant all of such taxes, subject to the limitation herein contained, in a single column as the City of Chicago tax. In case the aggregate amount levied, ex- clusive of the amounts levied for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, shall exceed five per centum of such assessed value, such excess shall be disregarded, and the residue only treated as certified for extension. In such case all items in such tax levy, except those for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, shall be reduced pro rata. The tax so extended shall be collected and enforced in the same manner and by the same officers I as state and county taxes, and shall be paid over by the officers collecting the same to the city treasurer. The city treasurer of the City of Chicago shall keep separate funds in conformity to said tax levy, which funds shall be paid out by him upon order of the proper au- thority for the purposes only for which the same were levied. 12-2. The Board of Education, the Board of Park Commissions and the Board of Library Directors, of the City of Chicago, respectively, shall each, yearly, upon the request of the City Council, prepare and transmit to it a statement of its receipts and expenditures for the current or preceding fiscal year (as the case may be), stating therein the sources of its receipts and the several objects and purposes of its expenditures. It shall also, upon such request, prepare and transmit to the City Council an esti- mate of its expenditures for the ensuing fiscal year, stating therein the several February 22 995 1907 •objects and purposes of such expendi- tures. BY MB, SHEPABD: Whereas, the charter for the city con- tains provisions for the levy and exten- sion of city, school, park and library taxes, and the provisions contained in section two of an act entitled “An act for the levy and extension of taxes,” in force July 1, 1905, are no longer neces- sary and are in conflict with the purposes of the charter provisions aforesaid, Therefore be it Besolved that this Con- vention recommend to the General As- sembly the enactment of the following bill into law: A BILL. For an act to repeal Section 2 of an act entitled, 1 1 An act concerning the levy and extension of taxes,” approved May 9, 1901, in force July 1, 1901, as amend- ed by an act approved March 29, 1905, in force July 1, 1905. Section 1. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, repre- sented in the General Assembly, that Sec- tion two of an act entitled, “An act con- cerning the levy and extension of taxes, ’ ’ approved May 9, 1901, in force July 1, 1901, as amended by an act approved March 29, 1905, in force July 1, 1905, be and the same hereby is repealed. BY ME. GKEENACBE: Amend Section 1 of Article 12 (page 104) by inserting therein immediately after the "words ‘ ‘ levied for library pur- poses ’ ’ and before the words 1 1 certified copy of such ordinance , 1 ’ the following sentence: Said City Council shall have power to set aside from any such specified amount levied for any of said purposes, parts thereof, together not exceeding one per cent thereof, and contribute the same to pension funds for disabled, retired or superannuated public servants of any de- partment toward the maintenance of which such specified amount levied ap- plies. February 22 996 1907 RESOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO AMENDMENT OF STATE CONSTITUTION Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Illinois, the Senate concurring there: in That there shall be submitted to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection at the next election of members of the General Assem- bly, a proposition to amend the Constitution of this State as follows: Resolved, That Article IV of the Constitution of this State be amended by ading thereto a section to be numbered and known as Section 34, and reading as follows, to-wit: Section 34. The General Assembly shall have power, subject to the condi- tions and limitations hereinafter contained to pass any law (local, special or general) providing a scheme or charter of local municipal government for thei territory now or hereafter embraced within the limits of the City of Chicago. The law or laws so passed may provide for consolidating (in whole or in part) in the municipal government of the City of Chicago, the powers now vested in the city, board of education, township, park and other local governments and authorities having jurisdiction confined to or within said territory, or any part thereof, and for the assumption by the City of Chicago of the debts and liabilities (in whole or in part) of the governments or corporate authorities whose functions within its territory shall be vested in said City of Chicago and may? authorize said city in the event of its becoming liable for the indebtedness of two or more of the existing municipal corporations lying wholly within said City of Chicago, to become indebted to an amount (including its existing indebtedness and the indebtedness of all municipal corporations lying wholly within the limits of said city, and said city’s proportionate share of the indebtedness of said county and sanitary district which share shall be determined in such manner as the General Assembly shall prescribe.) in its aggregate not exceeding five per centum of the full value of the taxable property within its limits as ascertained by the last assessment either for State or municipal purposes previous to the incurring of such indebtedness (but no new bonded indebtedness, other than for refunding purposes, shall be incurred until the proposition therefor shall be consented to by a majority of the legal voters of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special) ; and may provide for the assessment of property and the levy and collection of taxes within said city for corporate purposes in accordance with the principles of equality and uniformity prescribed by this Constitution; and may abolish all offices, the functions of which shall be otherwise provided for; and may provide for the annexation of territory to or disconnection of territory from said City of Chicago by the consent of a majority of the legal voters (voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special) of the said city and of a majority of the voters of such territory, voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special, and in case the General Assembly shall create municipal courts in the City of Chicago it may abolish the offices of Justices of the Peace, Police Magistrates and Constables in and for the territory within said city and may limit the jursidiction of Justices of the Peace in the territory of said County of Cook outside of said city to that territory, and in such case the jurisdiction and practice of said municipal courts shall be such as the General Assembly shall prescribe; and the Tebruary 22 997 1907 General Assembly may pass all laws which it may deem requisite to effectually provide a complete system of local municipal government in and for the City of Chicago. No law based upon this amendment to the Constitution, affecting the municipal government of the City of Chicago, shall take effect until such law shall be con- sented to by a majority of the legal voters of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special; and no local or special law based upon this amendment affecting specially any part of the City of Chicago shall take effect until consented to by a majority of the legal voters of such part of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special. Nothing in this section contained shall be construed to repeal, amend or affect Section Four (4) of Article XI of the Constitution of this State. Adopted by the House, April 22, 1903. Concurred in by the Senate, April 22, 1903. PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 23,190V \ (El|tragtf (ftliartrr (Hmturutuin Convened, December 12, 1 90S H CADQUARTFR0 171 WASHINGTON STREET TCICPHONC MAIN 4877 Milton J. Foreman Chairman Alexander H. Revell, . Vice-Chairman M. L. McKinley Secretary Henry Barrett Chamberlin, Asst Secy February 23 1001 1907 PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Regular Meeting, Saturday, February 23, 1907 2 O’clock P. M., in the City Council Chamber OFFICIAL RECORD Published by authority of the Chicago Charter Convention . THE CHAIRMAN: The Convention will come to order for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is a quorum present. The Secretary will call the roll. Present — Foreman, Chairman, and Badenoch, Beebe, Beilfuss, Bennett, Brosseau, Brown, Cole, Dixon, G. W., Dixon, T. J., Eidmann, Erickson, Fisher, Gansbergen, Greenacre, Guerin, Harri- son, Hill, Hunter, Lathrop, Linehan, MacMillan, McGoorty, McKinley, Mer- riam, Michaelis, O’Donnell, Post, Ray- mer, Robins, Rosenthal, Sethness, Shan- ahan, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Taylor, Vopicka, Walker, Werno, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 43. Absent — Baker, Burke, Carey, Church, Clettenberg, Crilly, Dever, Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Graham, Haas, Hoyne, Jones, Kittleman, Lundberg, McCormick, Oehne, Owens, Paullin, Pendarvis, Powers, Rainey, Revell, Rin- aker, Ritter, Shedd, Sunny, Swift, Thompson, White, Wilson — 31. THE CHAIRMAN: We lack three of a quorum. MR. POST: Mr. Chairman, I move that the sergeant-at-arms be sent to the Democratic convention to produce a few delegates. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will appoint Mr. Post. (Cries of “Hear! hear!” and “Con- sent! ’’) THE CHAIRMAN: Some of us can- not get in. There will be some more delegates here presently. A DELEGATE: Here is another del- egate, Mr. O’Donnell. THE CHAIRMAN: If there are any corrections to be made, let them be handed in to the Secretary; otherwise the minutes of the last meeting will stand approved as printed. THE CHAIRMAN: The remaining member of the Convention required to make a quorum is on his way over. The February 23 1002 r 1907 Secretary will proceed with the reading of the draft beginning 1 1 Corporate Pow- ers,’ ’ page 87. ME. EOSENTHAL: Are corrections to the minutes in order? THE CHAIEMAN: For what para- graph? ME. EOSENTHAL: On page — I have sent THE CHAIEMAN: What is your question, sir? ME. EOSENTHAL: I have sent to the Secretary’s desk a correction for page 98. THE SECEETAEY: We have it. THE CHAIEMAN: The correction has been made, the Secretary tells me. Proceed. THE SECEETAEY: Page 87, Article VIII, 11 Corporate Powers,” 1; page 88, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. THE CHAIEMAN: Not so fast. Give them a chance. Go ahead. THE SECEETAEY: 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 , 12 . ME. BENNETT: Is this page 89? THE SECEETAEY: Yes, sir. ME. BENNETT: Page 89. I want to call attention to the last paragraph of 8- — 9: ”No property, the ownership or management of which will entail any expense on the city, will be accepted by the city council, under any gift, de- vise or bequest, without the consent of the head of the department out of whose appropriation the cost of main- tenance is to .be met.” THE CHAIEMAN: That is sup- posed to apply particularly to the mu- seums and matters of that kind, that are presented to the parks, and the idea was they are to get the city council — to prevent the city council from accept- ing them, when the result would be that the maintenance would be taken out of an appropriation. ME. BENNETT: I understand' the purpose; that the city council should consult the head of the department. Do you want to except the park board? Will you not? THE CHAIEMAN: I see the point. ME. BENNETT: It seems to me un- wise in this charter to place on the head of a department so serious a proposition. THE CHAIEMAN: Do you desire to limit to the parks, libraries and schools? ME. BENNETT: I would move that. THE CHAIEMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the amendment. All in favor signify by saying aye; opposed, no. It is carried. THE SECEETAEY: Thirteen. ME. BENNETT: Item 12. THE CHAIEMAN: No. 12. ME. BENNETT: Item 12 limits the rights of the city to secure property by condemnation to water works, sewers and for parks and boulevard purposes only. I do not think that we can foresee at this time just what we may need outside of the city limits, and my judg- ment would be, and I would so hold, that if we give them the right to se- cure the property outside of the city limits that it should be without the re- strictions contained in this provision. THE CHAIEMAN: The city has the right to acquire the property by pur- chase. ME. BENNETT: Yes, I know. THE CHAIEMAN: But when the subjects were first considered it was determined that the city should not have the right to determine against the will of some neighboring property for some characters of business; and so the city was given the right to condemn for certain purposes, and to purchase for all purposes; I think it is a mistake to limit it. Of course, I appreciate the serious nature of the question. But no one can tell at this time, outside of the limits. MB. MacMILLAN: The particular point made at that time was to Jimit February 23 1003 1907 the annexation of property to these purchases because the suggestion was made that there might be pesthouses and garbage establishments and things of that kind. You may remember the discussion that arose with regard to putting a plant of that sort, for ex- ample, in the center of the city of Evanston; that is why this was lim- ited to these particular matters. It might meet the point made by Al- derman Bennett if this were to be added, “and for such other purposes as the city council may by ordinance determine. ” MR. BENNETT: That is all right. MR. MacMILLAN: “And for such other purposes as by ordinance the city council may determine.” I will write that out, if you wish. THE CHAIRMAN: The point was raised at that time that the members of the general assembly from outside of the city might probably object very seriously to giving such right to con- demn for garbage reduction plants in the city of Evanston or the town of Oak Park, or something like that. Pending Mr. MacMillan’s amendment being written out, we will pass that temporarily. Go ahead. THE SECRETARY: 14, 15 MR. ROSENTHAL: In 15, next to the last line, the words “a bid” in- stead of “bidding.” MR. HUNTER: It should be “bid” instead of “bidding.” THE CHAIRMAN: The correction will be made as suggested by Mr. Rosen- thal. Now turn to No. 12. THE SECRETARY: As amended by Mr. MacMillan, adding the words “and for such other public purposes as the city council may by ordinance deter- mine.” MR. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me you have just the same objection to that as before urged, when the matter came up, and even under any form of condemnation the city council would have to pass an ordinance providing actually and openly for the right to condemn the property outside of the city limits for whatever pur- pose it sees fit. That matter was very thoroughly thrashed out and argued pro and con, and there were some very weighty objections against allowing the broad, untrammeled right of condem- nation outside of the city limits. It was felt that it would simply invite ob- jection on the part of the members of the legislature from the adjoining dis- tricts to the City of Chicago. I think we should not ope*h that matter up again, but leave it as drafted. I think that is as far as we should go. I move, therefore, as a substitute — well, I will withdraw that, never mind. MR. MacMILLAN: I introduced this rather for the purpose of bringing up the subject than for pressing its passage. I think it is of doubtful pro- priety myself, but it is in accordance with the suggestion made by Alderman Bennett. As General Young has sug- gested, we took the matter up before and discussed it very fully, and I think the objection was considered by the Convention sufficiently strong to vote it down, and it was voted down. I bring it up rather as a subject for the purpose of discussion. Perhaps it would be a wiser plan, under the cir- cumstances, to leave it to the legisla- ture to pass upon that proposition. (Cries of “Question! Question!”) MR. BENNETT: I have nothing definite in mind at this time, but un- der the provisions now, we are limited to no specific thing, and no one can tell what we might need in the future. I cannot see that the condemnation pro- ceedings gives us the right to condemn — giving us the right to condemn is much different from the right of pur- chase. Condemnation would be applied as against the owner of property un- doubtedly if we wanted to purchase from the owner and if the price wanted February 23 1004 1907 by him is too high; it would be an ad- vantage if he made the price too high; we could get it then for what it is worth. In my judgment it should be made broader than it is now, although if the Convention feels it has passed upon this question finally, I do not wish to press it. MR. FISHER: I believe a sub-com- mittee, or the general committee, made some suggestion along the line suggest- ed in regard to hospitals, contagious hospitals, or anything of that sort, that owners of certain property might refuse to sell because of the sentiment of his neighbors, and that there would be some check on the neighboring munici- pality or neighborhood if that pro- vision was made; it would have the effect of there being a voluntary pur- chase, whereas, if it was put in by condemnation, if it was acquired by condemnation, the owner of the proper- ty would simply say to any objector, “Why, I have nothing to do with it; I had nothing to do with the sale; they condemned it. ” The question is whether the legislature would not find objection under the unlimited power reposed in the city council by this pro- posed vesting of power. MR. COLE: I call for the question. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor of Mr. MacMillan’s motion will say aye; opposed, no. The motion is lost. No. 16. THE SECRETARY: Page 90, the 16th. MR. O’DONNELL: I want to call attention to the fourth line of Section 15, reported on page 90. The words “may in its discretion,” should be given, as “shall;” the word “shall” should be substituted. THE CHAIRMAN: It is a typo- graphical error, Mr. O ’Donnell. The Secretary reports that the change will be made. MR. ROSENTHAL: In the third line of that paragraph the word “meeting” should follow after the word “regu- lar. ’ ’ THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair stated, when this matter was taken up, that the typographical errors would be corrected. It will all be gone over to correct the typographical errors. MR. ROSENTHAL: That is hardly typographical. THE CHAIRMAN: All right. The word 1 ‘meeting” shall be put in, Mr. Rosenthal. Proceed. THE SECRETARY: 16, 17, 18, 19. MR. ROSENTHAL: In the 18th, after the word — after the word * 1 shall ’ ’ it should be “in the name of the city.” That is on page 91, in the first line; the mayor and comptroller shall, in the name of the city. THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Pro- ceed. THE SECRETARY: Nineteen. MR. LINEHAN: Shouldn’t there be a limit there, that the council may pro- vide by ordinance, that all supplies needed for the use of the city shall be furnished by contract let to the lowest bidder? Shouldn’t there be a reglulation or limit of allowing the council to pur- chase to some small amount, say, like $ 100 ? THE CHAIRMAN: I think there is a provision that there shall be adver- tising for everything over $300 worth of supplies. MR. HUNTER: “The lowest respon- sible bidder,” instead of “the lowest bidder,” I suggest ought to be put in there. THE CHAIRMAN: Sir? MR. HUNTER: Mr. Chairman, I sug- gest that the word “responsible” be inserted between the word “lowest” and “bidder.” THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any objections? (Cries of “ Agreed 1”) THE CHAIRMAN: If not, “respon- sible” will be inserted. February 23 1005 1907 THE SECRETARY: Twenty-one. MR. POST: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a motion to strike out a por- tion of this section, but I shall wil- lingly withdraw the motion if any ex- planation is made for the insertion of the words. I move to strike out about the middle of the section the words il together with all appurtenances, ex- cepting from this grant all waters and land under waters heretofore conveyed by the State of Hlinois to other per- sons or bodies corporate and politic,” and then, two lines down, “subject to any lawfully existing riparian rights and easements, and subject to all public rights of commerce and navigation, and to the authority of the United States in behalf of such public rights.” I apprehend that the State of Hlinois cannot give the City of Chicago any- thing it has heretofore granted to any- body else, and it cannot give the City of Chicago any rights that are not es- tablished, at least specified. The clause I move to strike out seems, to be innocent enough, but their basis is merely reserving to the previous grantees of the state what may have been granted to them. It seems to me that, for the purposes of this section, that they have no real function, and it is better to have them out so that there may be no basis for unnecessary litiga- tion possibly lurking in the sentences. Therefore, I make that motion, unless some explanation is given for the neces- sity of the language being in. MR. LATHROP: Mr. Chairman, I had a conversation with Mr. John P. Wilson in regard to that provision, and I think those are Mr. Wilson's sug- gestions, if I am not mistaken, that those words were inserted on his sug- gestion. He thought that without those words, as I understood it, Mr. Post and Mr. Chairman, without those words, and a limitation of that kind, some of the lands might be subject to attack, and might have a flaw upon the title. Some of the lands on. the north side might be subject to a tax, which might be guarded by this sec- tion of the charter, with this limitation. I am sure it was with Mr. Wilson's ap- proval this was drafted, if not on his suggestion. MR. SHEPARD: If Mr. Post will include in his motion the insertion of the words “all of its rights, title and interest,'' it will be all right. MR. POST: In the first two lines. MR. SHEPARD: Yes. MR. POST: Yes, I would move to strike out those words and adopt the words suggested by Mr. Shepard in the first line. MR. FISHER: It seems to me this section was much discussed by the com- mitte, and Mr. Wilson has definite opinions in regard to it, so as to save litigation both on behalf of private owners and the park commissioners, both on the north and south sides. There was such general language, as I recall it, in the original draft, and it was referred to him to make sugges- tions in regard to this language. Un- less some very good reason to strike it out or modify it is given, I would leave it as it is. At any rate, it should be left to the drafting committee with- out instructions or motions to take it up and consider whether this lan- guage might not be stricken out without danger to the rest, because it is a mat- ter of great importance. As regards land under Lake Michi- gan, they vary from time to time, as we all know, owing to the height of the water, and the manner in which the same is driven inshore. There are al- ready statutes passed which test title in the parks exclusively for park pur- poses. This new proposition to convey title to this property solely to the City of Chicago might cause considerable confusion. It might cause confusion as to whether it was intended to February 23 1006 1907 MR. SHEPARD: May I ask a ques- tion? MR. FISHER: Yes. MR. SHEPARD: Is it only the pur- pose to convey only the present right, title and interest that you have held heretofore? MR. FISHER: No, I don’t think that. That would be a question of ex- actly what was the effect of this limi- tation without legislation. Take, for instance, in regard to the parks. I don’t know whether under state legis- lation you have the right to repeal the statute which vests in the park boards, which are governmental bodies, to fill in submerged lands or not. It would raise a serious question. In other words, that might grant to the com- missioners of Lincoln Park the right to fill in certain submerged land, and the omission would raise difficulty; or not taking certain steps according to correct technical political instructions, there might be a flaw in the title. I suppose the legislature would be in- terested. Any right the park commis- sioners have not acquired in that land might entail failure to comply with the technical requirements. While I am not expressing any positive opinion on this matter at all, I say that Mr. Wilson regarded it as a matter of great im- portance, and it was on his advice that the language was adopted, and unless there is some definite explanation, it should be left to the drafting com- mittee. MR. POST: Mr. Fisher himself, Mr. Chairman, has given a definite reason, it seems to me, that this language is necessary possibly to preserve to the grantees, some of whom may not be Chicago parties, a right heretofore granted, but which they have forfeited. Now, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we should not allow any language to creep into this charter which might confirm titles that have been forfeited, titles granted to private persons. Let the State of Illinois, give us — under my amendment, as amended by Mr. Shepard — let the State of Illinois give to us all its rights in this land, and let us stand by to protect the people in those rights. If private corporations have acquired rights and forfeited them by failure to carry out the conditions of those rights, let those rights come to us. Let us not legislate here for the steel trust or for any other of the grantees under the state whose rights under those grants have been forfeited. Mr. Fisher’s explanation, while prob- ably not the purpose of the insertion of this language, shows, in all probability, what would be its effect. I shall, there- fore, urge my motion as amended by Mr. Shepard. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, it strikes me this whole Section 21 should be referred to the law commit- tee. Mr. Wilson is chairman of the committee. It is a section the drafting of which we should be very careful on, more so than any other section in this charter. Now, there is another point in regard to this: I have some little doubt as to whether our title under the narrow construction put upon titles by the Supreme Court is sufficiently broad to include and cover this section. It is very desirable this section should go into our charter. It really cedes land that is not at present in existence to the City of Chicago, and, in drafting it, the question would be whether we could extend the boundaries in the man- ner in which you do there. The Supreme Court has held, in one case I have in mind, in the 124th 111., where a right outside of a city cannot be granted in a charter relating solely to the city, because persons outside the city are interested, and there is no question under the legislature of such title. I move it be referred to the law committee. MR. POST: May I ask if this whole section has not been submitted before February 23 1007 1907 to the law committee, and if it had not been for my motion it would not have gone through in all respects to which my remarks refer? MR. ROSENTHAL: I do not think it has been considered by the whole law committee, and it was my inten- tion, whether you got up or not, to make this motion. MR. FISHER: I do not think this first section has ever been referred to the committee at all. MR. POST: No. MR. FISHER: It was discussed for several hours at a meeting of the sub-committee. Now, I want to say, in answer to Mr. Post's suggestion, that I cannot understand, from a lawyer's standpoint, how this section could be contorted into a confirmance; it does not tend to confirm anything. MR. POST: Do you sustain it on that ground? MR. FISHER: No. MR. POST: Then I misunderstood you. MR. FISHER: It does grant the city those rights which have by previous acts been granted to the parks. Now, if there is a defect in the title, it would not cure that defect; it would simply convey it to the city of Chicago as a corporate body, whatever rights the state may have in that revisionary part; but there is nothing in here that would confirm the title of any property owner, but it would merely convey whatever title the owner had. THE CHAIRMAN: This matter was discussed for several hours in the com- mittee. If you will pass this matter temporarily, the Secretary is under the impression that this matter has been referred to the law committee, and that there is a report from the law commit- tee here; and, if you will temporarily pass this matter, we will try to find it. MR. SHEPARD: While that is being looked up, I desire to call your atten- tion to Section 3, this chapter. I have not any preconceived views on Section 3, except on page 88, where it provides that a suit may be brought by any tax- payer in the name and for the benefit of the city against any person or cor- poration to recover any money or prop- erty belonging to the city, or for any money, and so forth. At first view, that strikes me as very bad, that a cor- porate authority, elected and bonded with their various officers and law de- partments, to specifically place in the hands of any person at all times the authority to bring any suit at any time against any person or corporation in the name of the city is too broad an authority. THE CHAIRMAN: Isn't that the law. now, Mr. Shepard? MR. SHEPARD: I do not under- stand it is. THE CHAIRMAN: What? MR. SHEPARD: The property owner or the taxpayer has his remedy to com- pel the performance of public duty by mandamus or otherwise — by injunction and by various other forms, and it seems to me that this is too broad an authority to put into the hands of any community without any restriction. Under the present law, I understand, there is a limitation — I am informed it is so. I am also informed that is not the present law — though under the pres- ent law my recollection is there are safeguards and restrictions; but there are no restrictions in this. THE CHAIRMAN: We will try to find the present law here and see. MR. SHEPARD: The members of the city council and the city officials, those who have been at this Conven- tion, are perhaps better posted and more competent than I am to speak up- on this; but this’ at once assumes no city official will ever do his duty in initiating the proper proceedings. It seems to me, whether it is in the pres- ent law or not, in its present form or not, it should be stricken out in toto. February 23 1008 1907 THE CHAIRMAN: Section 172 of the present statute, “ Cities and Vil- lages, Chapter 24. " The Chairman read from Hurd's Re- vised Statutes. MR. GREENACRE: Mr. Chairman, I have inquired of one of the gentle- men of this body — I am not sure whether it was the last speaker or not, because I did not read the charter as to whether that particular section was in — but it has been the law, as the chairman has pointed out — under our old charter it has been the law in those words, with the exception of one word, since 1872. Nobody has abused it in thirty-five years in this city. I think that of itself answers the gentleman's argument that this should be the -law, or that this should not be the law and subject to objection. It is a salutary law; none was ever more salutary. Once or twice I know personally of its having been used in this sense, when the citizen told the city officer that if the city did not proceed, he (the citizen) would proceed, and the city officer never failed to proceed. That has occurred twice in my knowledge. I think it is a very good tfoing that there should be in the hand of the pri- vate citizen the right to say to a pub- lic officer, if somebody is defrauding the City of Chicago, “You proceed in the name of the city. If you will not, I will." The officer is never willing to allow a private citizen to do so; he is not willing to be shown up as being derelict in his duty, as seeking to shirk his duty, and he is not willing to allow a private citizen to have the credit which might follow to him, political or otherwise, from doing his duty; and the only way that the gentleman has — the only thing the gentleman has said for having the law not remain as it is, after thirty-five years of experience, is that we are growing so bad, so bad sud- denly, that although no evil has come from this law in thirty-five years, some interests somewhere fear that the peo- ple have grown so suddenly bad that this law is absolutely dangerous, and the people ought not to have the right to have any means of compelling a pub- lic officer to do his duty. Now, then, what reasonable conten- tion can be offered for striking out a- particularly well tried law after thirty- five years of existence? Can the gen- tleman point to a single instance any- where in the books, or in the history of this city, since this section has been tried, where it has been abused, or it might be abused, or attempted to be abused? MR. SHEPARD: Well, has it ever been used? MR. GREENACRE: Yes, sir; I know of twice at least where it has been used, when the section was pointed out to them, and not before. We must be getting awfully bad if there is occa- sion to come here now and alter the law after it has been in successful operation for thirty-five years. I re- spectfully insist, Mr. Chairman, that that is one of the most vital sections in favor of the people and in favor of the public duty, to compel an officer to do it; it is a weapon to compel an officer to do his duty; to compel offi- cers to do their duty that they should do under the law, and I certainly main- tain that if it was copied inadvertently from the old law that it was a splendid accident. I was afraid it was not here. I have not found that it was here, but I am told that it is. I certainly hope that it will remain, and that the gentle- man 's motion to strike out the para- graph will not succeed. ^HE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon Mr. Shepard's motion to strike out that section. As many as favor that will signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. The motion to strike out is lost. We will revert now to Section 12 February 23 1009 1907 MR. GREENACRE: If the Chairman please, I will ask for a roll call. I consider this is a most vital question, and we should have a roll call on it. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair has declared that Mr. Shepard 's motion was lost. MR. GREENACRE: Oh, all right; I thought you said the section was out. THE CHAIRMAN: We will now re- vert to Section 21. MR. YOUNG: I desire to inquire with regard to that section as it is now drawn, assuming that some right had been granted by the state and it has become forfeited, after this charter is passed would that property revert to the state or would it revert to the city, under the exception as it is drawn? THE CHAIRMAN: I don't get the gentleman's point. MR. YOUNG: I am referring to the one .just spoken of, Section 21. MR. ROBINS': I would rise for a point of information. Are we consid- ering Section 12 or Section 21? THE CHAIRMAN: Section 21. MR. YOUNG: I inquired, under the section as it is now drawn, supposing some right previously granted by the state becomes forfeited, where would the right revert to — back to the state, or would it revert to the city? It seems to me it would revert back to the state, and for that reason it seems to me we should discuss this matter and find out. MR. FISHER: Perhaps I might an- swer that, although it is only a guess; 1 assume that it would revert to the state. THE CHAIRMAN: It would revert to the granting power. MR. FISHER: Yes, I believe that is right. MR. YOUNG: Is it not desirable, under this section, that the state give all its lights to the city in the partic- ular property, and would it not be bet- ter not have any exceptions to any of those rights, not to have any rights become forfeited under such conditions? MR. FISHER: It is my understand- ing that this reversionary right could not be changed at all; it would have to revert according to law. It seems to me this is another thing that should be given to the committee to look into, and to have an opinion from them on this matter. MR. YOUNG: I do not refer to the property already reverted, but to the other. MR. FISHER: The difficulty about the matter is this, that there would not be a reverting by operation of law, there would have to be a proceeding by the state before it would get title by reversion. MR. YOUNG: Would not, if these exceptions were left out — would not the city have the right, as suggested? MR. FISHER: I don't think it would, unless it was expressly con- veyed, and I doubt if it could be. The general rule of law would be that the full power could not be conveyed. MR. YOUNG: I don't think Mr. Fisher gets my point exactly. I may not have made myself clear, but what I wanted to know was this: In the first place, when the state granted all its rights to the city in that section of land without exception, in that case would not the city have the right to proceed in the same sense, the same as the state would? MR. FISHER: I do not understand General Young. I have never examined the authorities on that point, but my understanding is, it would not have; that is also Professor Freund's under- standing. That is one of the troubles with this section. MR. SHEPARD: If it conveyed the greater, would it not convey the lesser? MR. FISHER: They would not have title; they would have a right of action to secure the reversion of what they had before conveyed. February 23 1010 1907 MR. POST:. Could not they convey that right to the city? MR. FISHER: My understanding is not, and that is Professor Freund’s un- derstanding. I am merely answering this, merely expressing my personal opinion. I think it would be better, in an important matter of this kind, if these questions could go back to the law committee and let them look up the question from a technical point of view. I think it is too important to be passed upon hurriedly; it ought not to be passed upon hastily. MR. POST: If Mr. Rosenthal will include in his motion that the motion now pending to strike out and the dis- cussion of the gentlemen on the motion be deferred, and that it revert to the law committee, this section, and that the law committee be directed to report to the committee on rules, I should be glad to second that motion. THE CHAIRMAN: The matter came up on a resolution of Mr. Patterson’s and was referred to the law commit- tee. The Chair is advised by the Secretary that the report of the law committee came to the committee on the procedure in a verbal report from Mr. Wilson, and that this section was afterwards redrafted by the special committee as a result of that. The matter certainly went to the law committee once. MR. FISHER: But I do not think the law committee made a report. THE CHAIRMAN: I stated that the Secretary so advised me. MR. ROSENTHAL: Just permit me a word in explanation. The matter was referred to the law committee, but be- fore the law committee reported, Mr. Freund had drawn the section, and at the last meeting I' introduced this par- ticular section, but the matter was never considered by the law committee at any time, and on account of this question that has been raised by Mr. Post, and other questions, that it is not an assignment, and cannot be con- veyed, as has been held many times by the courts — I think the matter should be referred to the law committee now. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection, it may go to the law com- mittee, and the law committee should draw the section. MR. FISHER: And then report to the rules committee. MR. POST: I would like to move that as an amendment, if Mr. Rosenthal does not accept MR. ROSENTHAL: I will accept it. MR. POST: Mr. Rosenthal says he will accept it, so that it may go to the law committee, and a report made. MR. LINEHAN: If it is going to the law committee, we should put some limit on the time in .which to report. I understand the members are busy, and it may be a couple of weeks be- fore we get a report back from them. Now, it would not do to have this mat- ter sidetracked, because some of the matters of this importance should be in the hands of the law committee; and, as I understand it, the law committee has already reported on it, and reported this section just as it stands, and we can just as well act on it. If it is going to the law committee, we should see that the law committee should report within one week. THE CHAIRMAN: I think we should have a report before that, be- cause we ought to have our work done before that. MR. POST: Friday. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chairman would suggest that the matter go to the law committee, and that the law committee then refer it to the commit- tee on rules, procedure and general plan, if it at that time determines so to do. MR. FISHER: The question involved in Mr. Post ’s motion involves cer- February 23 1011 1907 tain questions of policy ; and the law committee might report that cer- tain things could be done, and it might be done in the alternative, and be law- ful, but I think there is a question of policy about it. MR. WALKER: What is it that is to be referred to the law committee? Just what is it? THE CHAIRMAN; The section, as printed, and the amendment of Mr. Post, and the various legal questions that were raised by Mr. Rosenthal, and by Mr. Fisher, relating to the rights of the leg- islature to grant these rights to the City of Chicago. MR. WALKER: I suggest that we also refer the question raised by Colonel Young, as to whether or not we cannot include the words in the grant, “All re- versionary interest that the state may possess now, or may hereafter possess 1 \ because I think that is a very impor- tant point. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection at all, that will go to the law committee. The secretary will now con- tinue with the reading. The matter has been referred to the law committee. THE SECRETARY: Police pow- ers, 1. MR. POST : May we have the lights turned on. It is getting pretty dark here. THE CHAIRMAN : Yes. THE SECRETARY: Two. MR. ROSENTHAL: There is an amendment to the first part of section 3, which Mr. Greenacre has agreed to. THE CHAIRMAN: To what section? MR. ROSENTHAL: Section 3 of the act just read; the first part of section 3. THE CHAIRMAN: What does it re- fer to? , THE SECRETARY: Police powers, on page 88. THE CHAIRMAN : Yes. THE SECRETARY: Section 3. MR. ROSENTHAL: Section 3, page 88 . THE SECRETARY: Section 3, page 88: “After written demand made upon the proper officer, and refusal or failure by such officer to act within 30 days thereafter. ’ ’ THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection that section will be added. Proceed with the reading. THE SECRETARY: 2; 1, 2, 3, 4; 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. MR. SNOW: I wanted to ask a ques- tion, which perhaps Prof. Merriam will answer. It is this question: I wanted to know whether or not under the in- terpretation of the last section, or the last paragraph of section 4, artivle V, if it would be possible for the city coun- cil, with a referendum vote, to repeal section 10 of article XXIX, or any por- tion of that section? MR. MERRIAM: I did not get that. THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Snow desires to ask you — will you state it again, Mr. Snow? MR. SNOW : What I want to know is this : Whether, under the last sec- tion, the last paragraph of section 4, article Y, if it would be possible for the city council with the referendum vote to repeal section 10 of XXIX, or any por- tion of that section? MR. MERRIAM: I do not think so; my understanding is that it would not. MR. SNOW: It struck me so, and yet the wording of that last paragraph is such that I cannot be quite sure about it. MR. MERRIAM: You might insert this if you have any doubt about it, as to the payments, and the conditions, and so on. MR. SNOW: Then, Mr. Chairman, I would move that under section 4 of art- icle Y there be an express inhibition to repeal section 10 of XXIX. THE CHAIRMAN: Alderman Snow moves that section 4, article V, shall pro- hibit any change in the prohibition laws of the annexed districts. MR. SNOW: Exactly. THE CHAIRMAN: As many as fa- February 23 1012 1907 vor that will signify by saying aye ; op- posed, no. The motion is carried. ME. BENNETT: Going back to sec- tion 7 : No ordinance shall be enacted, ordering the limit of the height of build- ings, except by a two-thirds vote of the city council, and no such ordinance shall go into effect unless it shall be submitted to the people. I would like to inquire where that section is so covered? I did not think that it was in the original draft? THE CHAIRMAN: The chair is un- able to state. ME. ROSENTHAL: Well, then, I move to strike it out. MR, BENNETT: The present limit fixed is too weak. I think we will come to that conclusion before many years in this city, that the council should have the power to change the heights of build- ings, and I therefore second the motion. THE CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen, you have heard the motion — MR. FISHER: 'I do not think we want to enter on this quite so freely. There is a good reason why the city coun- cil will have the right to change the lim- itation on the height of the buildings, but one thing we do not want, and that is to have the limitation on the height of the buildings go up and down with the exigencies of some particular prop- erty owner that wants to boost his build- ing. The great objection heretofore with regard to ordinances regarding the height of buildings is that they have been really special legislation. When- ever we fix the height of buildings, and somebody wants to erect a building higher, he works through an ordinance, increasing the height of buildings, tem- porarily; and there it stands until some- body else works up to that. I do not know in what form that was covered in the committee ; all I know is that in the draft of the charter that was submitted to the special com- mittee of the committee on rules, there • was an ordinance on this matter, and it was discussed at great length. I do not know where it originated. MR. ROSENTHAL; Mr. Fisher, will you yield to a question? MR. FISHER: Yes, sir. MR. ROSENTHAL: What is the purpose of submitting a question of that sort to a vote of the people? MR. FISHER: I beg your pardon? MR. ROSENTHAL: Why is this or- dinance so different from all other ordi- nances that it must be submitted to a vote of the people? MR. FISHER: All I can do is to repeat the reasons given in the com- mittee. MR. HARRISON : There is a mo- tion before the house to strike out this section? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. HARRISON: Now, Mr. Chair- man, I move to amend that motion by striking out all after the words “city council”, in the third line. I think the point urged by Mr. Fisher would be gained by compelling a two-thirds vote to pass such an ordinance. MR, FISHER : Mr. Chairman— MR. FISHER; We have been using the name of Mr. Wilson a good deal here, and I am sorry he is not present. It was one of the few places in this charter that Mr. Wilson was so enthusi- astically in favor of the application of the principle of the referendum. His point was that the city council ought to adopt an ordinance placing a limit on the height of buildings, and then it ought to be made as difficult as possible to change that height, unless the people of the city as a whole really de- sire to change it. The important thing in this regard was to fix some limit, and stay there, and, therefore, the vote in the city coun- cil should pass by a two-thirds vote, or a unanimous vote — if the council should pass by a two-thirds vote or a un- animous vote, an ordinance which would February 23 1013 1907 change the height of the building from going up or down to suit the exigencies of any particular case, that the people ought to have a vote on it, and it should not be changed unless they desired it. ME. HUNTEB: I call for the ques- tion on the amendment. THE CHAIEMAN: The question is on Mr. Harrison’s amendment to Aider- man Bennett’s motion. ME. POST: What is the amendment? THE CHAIEMAN: Sir? MB. POST: What is the amendment? THE CHAIEMAN: Mr. Harrison moved to strike out the words, and no such ordinance shall go into effect un- less it shall have been submitted to the voters of the City of Chicago, and ap- proved by them in a manner provided by law. It requires a two-thirds vote of the city council to change the height of the buildings. ME. MEEEIAM : Mr. Wilson argued very strongly before the committee that the referendum should be applied in such cases as this, and I think it would be a great mistake, where a principle of the referendum is involved here. ME. COLE: Mr. Wilson has got his head turned, and I believe it is encour- aging that that amendment will not pre- vail. ME. BENNETT: Mr. Fisher has ac- cused me with this sort of gaiety. I disclaim any such condition of mind. I understand the purpose of this con- dition is to retain the present heights of the buildings. Now, any ordinance passed by the city council may be sub- mitted to a referendum, upon a petition, and I see no reason why we should spe- cially attach a referendum provision to this section. On the other hand, I see many reasons why we should not. As 1 said before, the time may come when we will want to lower the heights of these buildings, and I believe it will. I think we made a mistake when we raised the height the last time. The condition of the downtown district is such, to my mind, that in the near future the height of the buildings should be limited to a lower height than at the present time. I realize that investors in real estate in the downtown district, and those in- terested in them, might desire to fix the act as at present, and protect them from any possibility of attack or change. But to my mind the best interests of the city is to leave this matter in the hands of the council, with the vote provided here, and I concur with Mr. Harrison in his motion to strike out the last provi- sion. ME. FISHEB; I would like to ask Mr. Bennett a question which was pro- pounded in the committee; these argu- ments I think were all gone over in the committee and I am only repeating them for the Convention. Does Mr. Bennett think the people will vote against the proposition to lower the height of the buildings? ME. BENNETT: They might. ME. FISHEE: You think they would? ME. BENNETT: You cannot tell what they would do. THE CHAIEMAN: The question is on the adoption of Mr. Harrison ’s amendment, striking out all the words in section 7 after the word 1 1 council. ’ ’ The Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Badenoch, Beebe, Bennett, Brosseau, Brown, Dixon, G. W., Eid- mann, Erickson, Gansbergen, Harrison, Hill, Hunter, Lathrop, Linehan, McGoor ty, McKinley, Michaelis, Eaymer, Bosen- thal, Sethness, Shanahan, Shepard, Smul- ski, Snow, Taylor, Yopicka, Walker, Werno, Wilkins, Young — 30. Nays — Beilfuss, Cole, Fisher, Green- acre, Guerin, MacMillan, Merriam, O’Donnell, Post, Eobins — 10. THE CHAIEMAN: The ayes are 30 and the nays are 10. The motion to amend is carried. No. 11. THE SECEETAEY: Page 94, 11. Page 95, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. February 23 1014 1907 MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, sec- tion 16. I don’t recollect that the con- vention ever passed on that section. THE CHAIRMAN: A' little louder, please. MR. BENNETT : The last paragraph, which gives a contractor the right to acquire the claim and the lien, the right to impose a lien, on property, for al- terations made. It seems to me that is pretty broad. I believe in the spirit of the section, but I doubt if we could give such a right. This, as I under- stand it, provides that when an owner refuses to comply with an order direct- ing him to take measures or make al- terations in his property, such measures may be taken or alterations made by the city at the expense of the owner or occupant and the city shall be au- thorized to collect all charges by legal proceedings against the owner or occu- pant and to impose a lien, or the contrac- tor may do it. Was that matter fully considered in the committee, Mr. Fisher? MR. FISHER; It was considered, but not very fully. It is not considered an important matter, but it is considered that the city should be authorized to collect all charges incurred by it by legal proceedings against the owner or occu- pant. The question was, whether the city in the end would have to pay the money and proceed against the owner, or whether it might require the contrac- tor to go on with the lien. It is a mat- ter of no great importance and it was not discussed to any great length. No- body thought it was dangerous. MR. BENNETT: I think, Mr. Chair- man, that that matter might be referred to the committee for further considera- tion. It might involve us in lawsuits. MR. FISHER: Move to strike it out if you don’t like it. MR. SHEPARD: Strike it out, that section 16. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the mo- tion? MR. FISHER: I don’t see any pur- pose in referring it to the committee; it is a question that should be decided here. MR. BENNETT : I move to strike out the last paragraph. MR. FISHER: The last sentence. THE CHAIRMAN : < ‘If the city em- ploys a contractor, for the purpose of doing such work it may assign to him the claim and the right to impose the lien herein provided for”? You move to strike that out? MR. BENNETT: I do. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? All those in favor of Mr. Bennett ’s motion signify by saying aye; opposed, no. It is carried. MR. FISHER: The suggestion oc- curs to me that in view of striking out that last sentence that perhaps we should insert above there: “And the city shall be authorized to collect all charges incurred by it”, “or under its authority”. That is, insert the words 1 1 or under its authority ’ ’. Then the city would not have to be knocking at the treasury, but would itself enforce the laws that it found necessary for the public protection. MR. MacMILLAN : What is in- curred by it, you mean. THE CHAIRMAN : Are there any objections to that? MR. SHANAHAN : Mr. Chairman, 1 would ask the drafting committee how 9-16 compares with the present law. MR. FISHER; I understand it is new in the law of this city and state. It is contained in the charters of many other cities, but not here. MR. SHANAHAN : I move to strike out the entire section. I think it is a dangerous proposition. MR. SHEPARD : I second the mo- tion. MR. FISHER: I think it would be a serious mistake to strike out that sec- tion if you want to safeguard our in- terests in any way. Certainly the city ought to be left the power to make these changes and alterations if the owner re- February 23 1015 1907 fuses to make them. They don’t want to be held absolutely to the present con- dition. The building commissioner now absolutely and ruthlessly destroys the buildings; his only recourse is a law- suit. This provision has worked well elsewhere. As I understand, in New York they have had this provision for a long time; and if it is properly safe- guarded it seems to me there is no harm in it at all and might accomplish a very great deal of good. The rules in regard to this matter should be more effective. ME. HUNTEB : I think this is a very dangerous section. Some such men as we have working for us now might make alterations, and it would be prac- tically impossible to control them once they started, unless they absolutely con- fiscate the property. There is no doubt about it; we know from experience what it is, and what it has been in the past. ME. FISHEE: May I ask you if you have noticed that it merely author- izes the city council, provided it cannot be done any other way? ME. HUNTEE : I know and the other gentlemen have had experience who have sat on the city council, what has been done in the past and what will be done in the future. I have been a member of the council for some years and that is the reason why I think this section ought to be stricken out. ME. YOUNG: It seems to me the city has authority enough; all it really needs. It can pass an ordinance re- quiring certain things and can impose a sufficient fine to compel the owner to do that. It seems to me it is unnec- essary to put that paragraph in at all. As it now stands it is unnecessary. A change might be made involving the rights of the property owner, and as has been suggested, to the injustice and the detriment of the owner. Under the present plan it seems to me we can ac- complish all that is necessary. ME. MEBBIAM: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me this should be taken in connection with page 94, article 9-9 : 1 1 The power of the tenement or lodg- ing houses may be exercised so as to prescribe regulations, additional to those provided for by the general laws of the state. ’ ’ This will authorize the city to pass more complete and thorough- going tenement and lodging house reg- ulation ordinances. Unless you have an article like 16 it will be found that the city is practically impossible to carry out the requirements of law. In New York, for example, when they organized the tenement houses commission it was serious work to clean out the crowded districts and the unsanitary districts, which were found to be greatly detri- mental to health in those places in New York city; they found they had to have a clause of this sort; I do not know of any case where it has been abused. Unless the state has that power, if it can only fine the owner of property, they cannot enforce the law. ME. SHEPAED : It seems to me this section should be stricken out. If the city is going to have the power to rebuild a building, contractors will fol- low the city around and see how many buildings may be remodeled on the vio- lations found to be committed by the property owner, which is wholly in the judgment of the commissioner, and we would have a very broad abuse of the power. You will remember that under the present law the city can compel the discontinuance of the use of any build- ing for a violation of any of its san- itary laws. During last year we had some big stores in the down town dis- trict closed up because a door was not put in, or a stairway put in or taken out. If we follow that out by author- izing the city, or one of its officers, to hire a contractor or contractors, to re- model that building at the expense of the property owners, we put in an in- vitation to use very great and wide pow- ers. The power provides what is sani- February 23 1016 1907 tary and what is necessary, and the additional power to close a building un- less the owner complies with the re- quirements, and that seems to me is suf- ficient. If the owner then does not care to continue the use of its building it is in his discretion to vacate it or stop, but we should not give the city through a private contractor powers to enter that building against the owner’s wish and remodel it and saddle the expense upon the people. It would invite abuses. There is no reason for it. It would go to the extent of confiscation. At any rate, it would always run against the property owner ’s wish. If he did not want to comply with the rules he would have to stop use of the building. At least that discretion should be vested in the property owner. I think it should be stricken out. ME. EOBINS: The question before the convention at this time, is whether the tenement house ordinance is going to be made effective, or whether it is not to be made an effective ordinance. I hope this question will not be de- cided upon the vagaries of any partic- ular passing building commissioner ; I hope it will not be decided on the as- sumption of unfairness in its opera- tion against the landlords entirely. The operation of this clause in other cities has been absolutely against any such assumption. The facts are there: You have a health department with certain powers; you have provisions in regard to your building ordinance, and more particular- ly matters of health regulations in re- gard to plumbing. There are in the crowded areas of this city at the pres- ent time — there is, within one block, within my knowledge, or was within two months ago, thirty-eight violations within that block of the plumbing ordi- nance. There have been reports upon that time and time again ; there have been fines paid of ten or fifteen or fifty dollars in some cases; but the cost of putting in adequate and proper plumb- ing facilities in these tenements would be several hundred dollars, and the own- ers of the property prefer to pay that fine and neglect to fulfill the law. Now, you say that property can be closed. Let us see if it can. Here is a building, four stories, rear and front flats; we have a provision supposed to be enforced by the health department in regard to the plumbing, and the people have paid their rent. Can you close that building and put those people out on the street? You do not do it. The practice is that it is never done; the practice is that though it has the power to force the landlord to do his duty, it works out that the tenants simply suffer. When you have a vigor- ous health inspection department, there are, occasionally, fines paid, and some landlords, when the cost is not too great, fulfill the requirements, otherwise they wait for the time when they pay their fine, and so escape it. The whole ques- tion before us, in my judgment, with the experience I have had in this mat- ter, and I have had considerable, as far as that goes, is this : I suppose there is not a member of this conven- tion who is not familiar with the ty- phoid epidemic of some three years ago; and the fact that certain of the san- itary inspectors of the city lost their positions, because of the investigation made into the actual conditions in the territory where the typhoid epidemic pre- vailed to the greatest extent in the city. We found that the whole difficulty in this matter of violation was because the law as at present framed was lax, and it will be objected, possibly, that it would put the incidents of hardship upon the tenant rather than upon the landlord. The landlord can afford, if he owns his building, — suppose you go to him and say that you will close his building, and suppose you do close it, — let us sup- pose the case of a lot of Greeks down along Halsted street; you put them out February 23 1017 1907 on the sidewalk. The alderman will come along and say, “What is the mat- ter with you? Haven't you got any hu- man sympathy whatever? Are you going to put these people out? Are you going to do this thing?" And they can't do it, and the people go back to the houses. Now, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the convention, it seems to me it is simply a question of whether you are going to enforce the tenement laws, par- ticularly in the matter of sanitary plumb- ing, in the homes of the poor, or whether you are going to put the burden of' the failure of its enforcement upon the ten- ants. I think this section should be retained in the law; I believe it is what we need; in other cities there have been no hardships where such law has been enforced, and I see no reasons for ob- jecting to it. If a commissioner does not do his duty, Mr. Chairman, an in- junction will run, and no commissioner will dare, and no health inspector will dare to make a demand that is not with- in the law. Are we suffering in Chicago because people make demands in excess of the law for enforcing the law? I believe not. It does not seem to me that this charter convention wants to leave that condition for the future to take care of, in a great city like Chicago, growing all the time, with its great tenement popu- lation and constant influx of emigrants that cannot protect themselves, who come here to live. This is a matter that we ought to take care of now. MR. VOPICKA: I second the mo- tion of Mr. Shepard, to strike out this clause. I have had some experience with tenants in tenement buildings, and I know that a man has to pay — when a man has to pay a fine, why he complies with the law. I do not believe this charter convention should adopt any law which would be arbitrary on the landlord. Prop- erty in Chicago does not pay any too much now, and we want to give the prop- erty ownefs a chance, we do not want to send them away ; in other words, we want the people to stay in Chicago, we want to give them a chance to re- main, and we also want to give a chance to outsiders to invest their money here. I believe it would be detrimental to the interests of the City of Chicago if an article of this kind would be passed. I hope it will not pass, but that it will be stricken out. I second the mo- tion made by Mr. Shepard. MR. TAYLOR: If it is a question of the possibility of abuse, it seems to me we should ask who are the most likely to be abused. In my opinion, the inhabitants of the tenements are the most likely to be abused. In all the cities where their general improve- ment has been looked after, some such general provision as this has been found to be necessary ; and, while it sounds very plausible that in this or that in- stance you may fine a man, or close his particular building, the question be- fore Chicago is the general importance of the general improvement of the ten ement house districts of the City of Chicago, which are rapidly increasing. I fail to see how any general improve- ment can be obtained unless there is some general charter provision such as is here proposed. I think it would be a calamity to the tenement house dis- tricts to have this section stricken out, without some reasonable substitute placed in the charter or in the law for it. MR. POST : I would like to ask Mr. Robins or Mr. Taylor, if this section is adopted — if this section would not be just as effective if the last three lines, with reference to contractors, were stricken out ? THE CHAIRMAN: It has been stricken out. MR. ROBINS: It has been striven out, and we raised no objection to strik- ing it out, and I think it shorn* i he stricken out. MR. POST: Well, all right. THE CHAIRMAN: The question February 23 1018 1907 now is upon the motion to strike out the balance of the section. Upon th^t the secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Bennett, Eidmann, Erickson, Guerin, Hunter, MacMillan, Sethness, Shanahan, Shepard, Yopicka — 10. Nays — Badenoch, Beebe, Beilfuss, Brosseau, Brown, Cole, Dixon, G. W., Fisher, Gansbergen, Greenacre, Harri- son, Hill, Lathrop, Linehan, McGoorty, McKinley, Merriam, Michaelis, Post, Baymer, Bobins, Sethness, Smulski, Snow, Taylor, Walker, Werno, Wilkins, Young — 28 . (During roll call.) MB. GUEBIN: What is the motion, to strike out, or what ? THE CHAIBMAN: You asked what the motion is? MB. GUEBIN: Yes. THE CHAIBMAN : The motion is to strike out No. 16, article IX. MB. GUEBIN: I vote aye. MB. POST: Mr. Chairman, I under- stand that the last three lines have already been stricken out; therefore I vote no. MB. YOUNG: I do not usually rise to explain my vote, but as I spoke on the opposite side of the question, after hearing Mr. Bobins and Dr. Taylor pre- sent their objections, I have taken that into consideration, and therefore I vote no. THE CHAIBMAN: Upon the mo- tion to strike out, the yeas are 10 and the nays 28, and the motion is lost. MB. EOSENTHAL: In the first line of the section, after the words “the city council may”, I ask to insert the words “without prejudice to its other rights, powers and remedies”, and in the second line, after the word “fail”, add “after due notice”. THE CHAIBMAN: Mr. Bosenthal presents two amendments, which the sec- retary will read. ME. EOSENTHAL: That is in the first line, after the words, 1 1 the city council may”. THE SECBETABY : After the word “may”, in the first line of 9-16, page 95, insert the words, “without prejudice to its other rights, powers and reme- dies ’ \ THE CHAIBMAN: Are there any objections to that? If so, all those in favor will signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. It is so ordered. ME. BOSENTHAL: Then the next line — THE CHAIBMAN : What is the next one? MB. BOSENTHAL: After the word “fails”. THE SECBETABY: In the second line, after the word ‘ ‘ fails ’ \ add the words “after due notice”, “ refuses or fails after due notice”. THE CHAIBMAN: Are there any objections to that amendment? MB. FISHEB : Mr. Bosenthal says “due notice”; does that mean any par- ticular kind of notice? MB. BOSENTHAL: After reasonable notice ; 1 ‘ written notice ’ ’ is probably better. THE CHAIBMAN; After reasonable written notice. MB. BOSENTHAL: After reasonable written notice. THE CHAIBMAN: I suppose that means that the writing shall be reason- able. Well, the drafting committee will catch the idea. The secretary will pro- ceed with No. 17. THE SECBETABY: No. 17, bottom of page 95; No. 18, page 95; 19, page — ME. BOSENTHAL: I have an amendment to offer to that section, to strike out the words 1 1 the city may main- tain an action in the municipal court of the City of Chicago”, and substitute the words which I have sent up to the desk. THE SECBETABY: In lieu of the words in section 19, at page 96, in lieu of the words 1 1 the city may maintain an action in the municipal court of the City of Chicago ’ ’, insert the words, 1 1 the city may begin and maintain proceedings ’ \ February 23 1019 1907 ME. HUNTEE: May what? THE SECEETAEY : “The city may begin and maintain proceedings ’ ’. ME. FISHEE: That does not pro- vide the court in which it may be brought. ME. EOSENTHAL: No, it does not provide the court in which it may be brought. I do not believe in this indi- rect way of extending the jurisdiction of the municipal court; it has now no jurisdiction in chancery matters, no chan- cery jurisdiction. ME. FISHEE : Is it not the reverse of what Mr. Eosenthal is stating? If we are going to confer power to main- tain such an action in any court, it must be — this charter must be — in the munic- ipal court — if we are going to confer power to maintain such action in any court in this charter, it must be in the municipal court. We cannot enlarge the jurisdiction in the circuit courts of the state by a law relating only to Chicago; their jurisdiction must be general through the state. ME. EOSENTHAL: It does not en- large the jurisdiction, because the cir- cuit court of Cook county already has jurisdiction in matters of this kind, and the superior court has jurisdiction ; but that authorizes the city in these cases to begin proceedings in courts having juris- diction. ME. FISHEE: The question, if the Chairman please, is whether or not the circuit court will have jurisdiction in restraining violations of the ordinances by injunction. It is the opinion of a portion of the law committee, which sat with the drafting committee, that it could not be done, if this precise language was adopted, because Mr. Wilson con- tended that that was the only way in which it could be accomplished, the only way in which this jurisdiction could be conferred, it would have to be limited to the municipal court. I concur with the general principle recommended by Mr. Eosenthal in re- gard to the municipal court act; but it does not have that effect, but merely in- dicates the court in which such action so created would be brought. There does not now exist an action to restrain violations of the ordinance, and this was meant to confer upon the municipal court that right, and this is the opinion that Mr. Wilson gave, that this would be the proper way to reach that point. ME. GEEENACEE : I would like to ask if that is legal* ME. FISHEE: Well, perhaps I ought not to give my' opinion in the matter, and perhaps I have no opinion that would have any great weight in the matter. It is Mr. Wilson ’s opinion that this is legal, and it is the only way it can be done; if it is not legal, it cannot be done at all. THE CHAIEMAN : Are you ready for the motion on Mr. Eosenthal ’s amend- ment? All those in favor will signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. It seems to be lost. It is lost. The sec- retary will proceed. THE SECEETAEY: 20, 21, page 97, article X: “Powers for aid, relief and correction. ’ ’ 1, 2, 3, — ME. MEEEIAM : No. 3, strike out, “in connection therewith”, “municipal lodging houses for unemployed persons and employment bureaus in connection therewith”, seems to be ambiguous and uncertain. It does not add anything to what is already there. I move to strike out the three words mentioned. THE CHAIEMAN ; That came from Mr. Cole’s committee, didn’t it? ME. COLE : Yes. ME. EOBINS: There was a very de- cided reason for having this inserted in this matter. THE CHAIEMAN: Yes, and I think Mr. Merriam knows what it was. ME. EOBINS: There is an objection held by many people to the city’s estab- lishing employment bureaus as a gen- eral proposition ; but there is no ob- jection by informed persons to the city’s February 23 1020 1907 establishing a bureau for the purpose of finding employment for indigent persons who may come to municipal lodging houses, and who have not money to pay fees, and who will become vagrants and charges on the community, and it is a social service, a municipal benefit, to give those persons a job, to get them to working and on their feet; but we don’t want to have established the principle that the City of Chicago — at least some persons don’t want to have it, I would not object — some persons don’t want to have — MR. MERRIAM: Will Mr. Robins yield to a question? MR. ROBINS : Certainly. MR. MERRIAM: Do you insist upon those words there? MR. ROBINS: I do not. I insist upon an explanation for the reason why the words are there, and why it was thought desirable that they be there, and after that is made, if it is desired that they be stricken out, why, they can be stricken out. THE CHAIRMAN : Professor Mer- riam has moved to strike out three words in that section. MR, FISHER: When this matter was discussed before the committee, if I may venture the explanation, we were informed that those words were put in by express action. The difficulty arises from the ambiguity of the words themselves. I do not understand that there is any ambiguity in the idea; the ambiguity is in the language. MR. COLE: I will explain how the ambiguity arises, if you wish. I want to say, in the first place, that Mr. Wilson was not consulted when those words were put in. But it was threshed out in the committee very thoroughly, Mr. Walker was there, and Mr. Robins was consulted, and some of the committee felt very reluctant about the city having anything to do with an employment agency, Mr. Sunny particularly; the chairman of the convention was present also, I think, and I, for one, had a few words to say in regard to this matter, and we wanted to add those words. There was not much ambiguity about it, — about the par- ticular language of the words, for we got the unanimous report of the com- mittee on it. MR. FISHER : The ambiguity still remains; that is to say, it is entirely uncertain as to just exactly what it means; it says “The city council shall have power to establish, erect and main- tain, alms houses, municipal lodging houses for unemployed persons and em- ployment bureaus in connection there- with.” Now, the question is, how r con- nected? Does that mean connected in the house or connected with some par- ticular ordinance, with relation to some particular ordinance, or what is the ef- fect of it ? MR. ROBINS: Connected with the house itself. MR. FISHER: Connected with the house itself? MR, ROBINS: Right in the house. MR, FISHER : That should be stated, then ; it is an ambiguity in the lan- guage, as I understand. “Employment bureaus in connection with municipal lodging houses ’ ’, in ordinary legal phraseology, I assume, would be inter- preted as being in connection with it, if it had any connection at all. MR. SHEPARD: Cannot we get through with this? I understand Mr. Fisher is troubled about the ambiguity of his own language. MR, FISHER: Not at all. MR. SHEPARD: Let it go back to his own sub-committee to clear up the ambiguity. THE CHAIRMAN: It is agreed that the intent of the section is that the employment bureaus will be maintained and operated in the lodging houses, and the drafting committee will be instruct- ed to phrase it. MR. BADENOCH : Substitute the words “therein” and strike out “in con- February 23 1021 1907 nection therewith”, “ municipal lodging houses for unemployed persons and em- ployment bureaus in connection there- with”. MR. SHEPARD: Leave it to the sub-committee. THE CHAIRMAN : The drafting committee will take that into consider- ation, and they will take care of that. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to revert, for a moment to section 2, ‘ ‘ The city council shall have power in its discretion to indemnify persons whose property has been destroyed by or under the authority of the fire de- partment of the city in order to check the spread of a conflagration.” It seems to me this opens up a new field and a dangerous one. On the face of it it would seem that it is just to reimburse people for property destroyed in case of conflagration; yet the law, as it now stands, does not fix a liability upon the city for anything that is necessary in such cases, in order to check fire, for any property destroyed. The chances are that the conflagration would destroy the property anyhow. I, for one, am somewhat in doubt about the wisdom of inserting this section. I would like to ask where it came from and what were the reasons given for it? THE CHAIRMAN: It does not say * ‘ shall 1 \ it says ‘ 1 may in its discre- tion ’ \ MR. BENNETT : I understand, where a case comes in that may appeal to the council — we have many of those cases now, for minor matters — but 1 think this is dangerous. MR. HUNTER: It says “shall”. MR. BENNETT : The tendency is to take care of the loss of the individual. Unless there is some good reason for this that can be given by the members who originated it, I think we had better leave it out. Where did it come from, Mr. Fisher, do you know? MR. FISHER: Was that question ad- dressed to me? MR. BENNETT : Yes. MR. FISHER: The situation was this: The attention of the committee was called to the fact that in a great many of the states there is a constitu- tional provision that a person whose prop- erty is destroyed by the fire marshal to prevent the spread of a conflagration, may have the right of recovery, and that is in the nature of a right to any other property owner who has property which is taken for public use. You have no more right to destroy a man’s house to stop a conflagration than you have to take property — than a railroad has to take property, or any other cor- poration, for railroad or any other pur- poses, take it by condemnation, and the committee ’s idea was that the city coun- cil should have the power if they wished to use it, but not to make it ob- ligatory. MR. BENNETT: I think it would be the better part of wisdom to leave that out, and I therefore move that it be stricken out. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is made and seconded that the second par- agraph of article X be stricken out, 1 1 The city council shall have the power in its discretion to indemnify persons whose property has been destroyed by or under the authority of officers of the fire department of the city in order to cheek the spread of a conflagration. ’ ’ Are you ready for the question ? MR. TAYLOR : May I ask of some lawyer here present whether a person who has property and whose property is thus destroyed, whether he has any ground for action? If this is stricken out — what is the general law of indem- nity now? MR. BENNETT: Under the law, as it stands now, he cannot recover. Most cases that come to us now r are cases where the fire marshal, in the line of his duty, destroys a vehicle on the street or injures a person driving to a fire. I do not remember lately of having any February 23 1022 1907 claim for any building destroyed. In all these eases which have come to us heretofore, the law department has rules that we are not liable, that it is one of the risks citizens take; it is one of the burdens imposed upon our citizens, in the case of conflagration, and, as I said before, his property would probably be destroyed by fire, anyway, and it would probably be necessary to tear it down. MR. TAYLOR : There is just a ques- tion there, Mr. Chairman; he cannot re- cover from the insurance company if the city destroys it, can he? MR. GREENACRE: That is a ques- tion I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, if there is an insurance lawyer here. I don’t know whether the insurance com- panies are liable or not; I rather think not, but I don’t know. If this property is destroyed by the city, not in conse- quence of fire. MR. HARRISON : It is my recollec- tion that in San Francisco the insurance companies are held liable for the prop- erty destroyed in checking the spread of conflagration. It may have been vol- untary on their part, but the news- papers have contained articles to that effect, that they held themselves liable for all the property dynamited in check- ing the spread of conflagration. THE CHAIRMAN: Have you yield- ed the floor, Mr. Greenacre? MR. GREENACRE: Yes. MR. ROSENTHAL: The policies ex- pressly except against anything of the sort, and if a building is blown up by dynamite or in any other way de- stroyed, in order to check the confla- gration, the insurance company is in no way liable. Now, it seems to me this is a very simple thing to retain in the charter — the council could exercise it. But it makes it discretionary with the council to indemnify a person who has suffered a loss for the benefit of the general people. I think it ought to remain in. MR. POST: The danger of this sec- tion is that it leaves the matter within the rights of the city council to either reimburse a party or not to reimburse him, and to state how much they will reimburse one and how much another. I believe thoroughly in the proposition stated by Mr. Rosenthal that the citi- zen who suffers in this way should not be compelled to bear the whole burden of the property which is destroyed for the common good, but it seems to me we ought not to pass this section, but that this is something that should be referred to the law committee, with in- structions to draft a section which will enable a person or persons whose prop- erty is so destroyed to bring an action, on the basis of a judgment under which suit he may be reimbursed. THE CHAIRMAN: It seems to me, Mr. Post, we had better first decide on the policy of the thing, as to whether or not you want to leave the section in here or not. The motion is to strike it out. MR. RAYMER: Mr. Post in the first place really gave the reason why I take my position. It leaves the mat- ter discretionary to the city council as to who should be reimbursed and under what conditions they should be reim- bursed. I think this provision would be a very unwise one to stay in the charter. As a matter of fact, a claim can be presented to the city for dam- ages on account of destroying property and every influence which could be brought to bear would be used on the finance committee and on the members of the city council - to get it through, whether it was absolutely just or other- wise. I believe it is a very dangerous provision to have in the charter. MR. FISHER: I think Mr. Post’s point is well taken, and, as I recall it, the words “by ordinance” were in this resolution when it was originally draft- ed — and that is Mr. Freund’s recollec- tion. I do not see how they came to be February 23 1023 1907 stricken out. It seems to me it is proper to authorize the city council to pay in part or in whole the damages sustained in this manner, and I now move that the drafting committee be instructed to redraft that section. I think that compensation in whole or in part for these damages should appeal to the fairness of every person who is a member of this Convention. The old theory that people ought to suffer for the general benefit is pretty generally getting out of vogue, and it certainly should not appeal to the gen- tlemen of this Convention, who are here to protect rights and property. If a property owner’s property is blown up by dynamite to stop the spread of conflagration, there should be proof brought of that fact. The ques- tion is whether they should be com- pensated for that. ME. MEERIAM: There is here in the statute a part which refers to tear- ing down, but not in quite the same words. I refer to No. 62. (Reads sec- tion.) MR. BENNETT: Upon the subject of providing for this matter by gen- eral ordinance, I do not see how that can be done. All that the general ordi- nance could do would be to say that the council shall allow such claims, but the particulars relating to each claim would have to be considered and passed on by the council and then, as a neces- sity, would become a subject matter to be passed on by itself. As I understand Mr. Post, his motion was to give the owner the right to re- cover in court, and if it is to take that course, then it is not a charter matter at all, but is a matter that should be provided for in the general laws of the state. That is the way it occurs to me. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? As many as are in favor of the motion of Mr. Bennett to strike out this section will vote aye; opposed, no. The Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Bennett, Gansbergen, Green- acre, Hunter, Lathrop, Linehan, Post, Raymer, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Walker, Young — 13. Nays — Badenoch, Beebe, Beilfuss, Brosseau, Brown, Cole, Dixon, G. W., Eidmann, Fisher, Guerin, Harrison, Hill, MacMillan, McGoorty, McKinley, Mer- riam, Michaelis, Robins, Rosenthal, Sethness, Taylor, Vopicka, Werno, Wil- kins — 24. (During roll call.) MR. HUNTER : Does this carry with it the provision by Mr. Post? THE CHAIRMAN : It carries the whole matter. MR. HUNTER: The suggestion of Mr. Post? THE CHAIRMAN: The suggestion of Mr. Post would carry it outside the charter. The question is simply on the motion of Alderman Bennett to strike out this section. MR. POST: Mr. President, I would like to explain my vote. I am in favor of the principle of this section, the prin- ciple of compensation for such losses, but I am opposed to this method of applying the principle. I, therefore, would join with those who vote to strike out the amendment and vote aye. I should like to reserve the right to make a motion on this subject before we pass it. MR. ROBINS: I wish to vote no, but for the purpose of having it re-referred, and having the provision and protec- tion under the general ordinance — and I hope that that will be the action taken after this vote is completed. THE CHAIRMAN : The yeas are 14 and the nays 24, and the motion is lost. The Secretary will read— — MR. POST: Mr. President, I would like — Mr. Robins, will you make the motion? February 23 1024 1907 MR. ROBINS: What is the next section? MR. POST: The second section. MR. ROBINS: I want you to move that. MR. POST: I move that Section 2 be referred to the committee on law, to report upon the question of whether under the constitutional amendment un- der which we are acting such a legal liability as is here indicated may be established by the charter. THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any objections? MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that THE CHAIRMAN: A little louder. MR. ROSENTHAL: It seems to me it is unnecessary to refer that to the law committee, for the reason that you are going to create a remedy here not possible to the individual. You can- not do it except by general law op- erative throughout the city. Whereas, if you give power to the City of Chi- cago that it can be done by this char- ter, I don’t think that is a matter that should be referred to the law commit- tee. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard Mr. Post’s motion. As many as favor the same signify by saying aye; op- posed, no. MR. POST: Roll call. THE CHAIRMAN: As many as fa- vor Mr. Post’s motion say aye; op- posed, no. The secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Beilfuss, Brown, Gansbergen, Greenacre, Guerin, Hunter, Linehan, MacMillan, Post, Raymer, Robins, Sethness, Taylor, Werno, Wilkins, Zim- mer — 16. Nays — Badenoch, Beebe, Bennett, Brosseau, Cole, Dixon, G. W., Eidmann, Fisher, Harrison, Hill, Lathrop, Me- Goorty, McKinley, Merriam, Michaelis, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Yopicka, Walker, Young — 23. (During roll call.) MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman, I want to say that it seems to me that we are wasting a valuable lot of time. Our legislature is about half through; prob- ably it does not look as though we are going to get this down there inside of two weeks. This has all got to be gone over in the legislature. I think we should expedite this and not be running around in a circle. I vote no. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Post’s mo- tion. The yeas are 16, the nays 23, and the motion is lost. Section 4. THE SECRETARY: Four. Page 97, 5. MR. POST: Mr. President, I didn’t know that we had considered 3. I wish to offer a suggestion, and I put it in the form of a motion, or a slight amend- ment there, in order to enable the City of Chicago to do, if it should wish to at any time, what other cities in this coun- try and in England are doing, with the view of making our vagrants and criminal classes self-supporting and self-respecting men, instead of contin- uing vagrants and criminals. THE CHAIRMAN : Will the Conven- tion come to order? MR. POST: Instead of continuing in their lives of vagrancy and criminal- ity. For the purpose of bringing that be- fore the Convention, I move to amend line 2, Section 3, by inserting after the words “lodging houses” “gardens and farms,” and in Section 5, after the word “workhouses,” by inserting the same phrase. THE CHAIRMAN: What is that? MR. POST: That the words “gar- dens and farms” should be inserted. The reading of the clause would be this, that in addition to providing places for the confinement and punish- ment and temporary relief of these in- dividuals the city would have the power, without going directly to the legislature, to establish gardens and farms to which people might be con- February 23 1025 1907 fined. The same method has been in force in other places in this country and in England, and it has been found a success in any place where it is adopted. ME. ROBINS: Mr. Chairman, with the permission of Mr. Post I will sug- gest that Section 5 be amended, if he has no objection, that that section read: “The city council shall have the power to establish and maintain jails, houses of correction and work- houses” — that we strike out the word “and” and insert the words “work farms. ” “Jails, houses of correction, workhouses and work farms for the confinement and reformation of va- grants, disorderly persons and persons convicted of violating any city or de- partmental ordinance, or of commit- ting any misdemeanor. ” The object being, Mr. Chairman, that the purpose of the work farm, that instead of put- ting people in the close — there is a class of vagrants and disorderly persons that are not helped by a short term in the house of correction. Everyone famil- iar with that character of work knows that to be true. That experiment has been found to be very beneficial in Massachusetts and in many other places where it has been adopted, and I believe power should reside in the City of Chicago to make such provision, if, in its judgment, it sees fit. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Robins moves to insert the words “work farms” in the second line after the words “houses of correction.” Are you ready for the question? All those in favor of the motion say aye; op- posed, no. It is so ordered. The next. MR. POST: Does that apply to Sec- tion 3 also? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. THE SECRETARY: Page 96 THE CHAIRMAN: It will be put in Section 3, too. MR. POST: That’s right. THE SECRETARY: Seven. MR. WALKER: I desire to offer an amendment to Section 7, after the words ‘ 1 work of, ’ ’ in the next to the last line of Section 7, there be inserted the words “detection, prevention, prosecu- tion and punishment of crime.” I offer this amendment for the reason that the dealing of the municipalities on the subject of the prevention and prosecu- tion of crime is one of the functions in which the city and county necessarily overlap. Possibly it is not the right place for it, but I think it is. The idea of the committee was this originally when we drafted this report, but it was omitted for some reason or other. So that the language from that on would read: ‘ 1 Mutual co-operation in the work of the detection, prevention, prosecution and punishment of crime, reformation, correction, charity, aid or relief.” MR. COLE: I second the motion. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion. All those in favor signify the same by saying aye; opposed, no. It is carried. Article XI. MR. ROSENTHAL: After the word “co-operation,” in 10 — 7, I think we ought to have “and contribution,” so that it will read in Section 7, “for mu- tual co-operation and contribution.” THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal moves to insert the words “and con- tribution.” MR. HUNTER: What does it mean? THE CHAIRMAN: Mutual co-op- eration and contribution. MR. ROSENTHAL: That means it should be done at the general expense or partial expense. Something of that sort. MR. WALKER: Don’t the general wording cover that, “the municipal au- thorities shall have power to enter into agreements and arrangements with the authorities of Cook County or other governmental bodies for mutual co- operation and contributions,” etc.? THE CHAIRMAN: What will you February 23 1026 1907 do with Mr. Rosenthal’s amendment? All those in favor signify by saying aye; opposed, no. It is carried. Arti- cle XI. THE SECRETARY: Page 98. MR. ROBINS: Mr. Chairman, these are two of the most important articles in the charter, and I think I noticed the departure of sufficient members to make this Convention without a quorum, and I would move you, Mr. Chairman, that we adjourn to such time as meets the pleasure of the Convention. I have not a suggestion or I would make one. MR. COLE: Mr. Chairman, we have got to get through at some time or an- other. Along in last December we ad- journed for only a few days, and here it is the 23d of February. We must remember that the legislature has got to consider this charter and it must go into committees. We have got to rush it through, but the country members have got to give it careful considera- tion. We have got to get action on this thing. I think we should adjourn till 9 o’clock tomorrow, and spend all day Sunday on it, so we can do some- thing, so we can get action on it. Either we must have more meetings or less talking. THE CHAIRMAN: Why is it not possible to finish this next section? MR. ROBINS: Well, I withdraw my suggestion, Mr. President. THE CHAIRMAN: Let us try, any- way. Proceed. THE SECRETARY: Page 98, Ar- ticle XI, Finance. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, Sec- tion 5, nearly to the end, after the ’ word 1 ‘found,” in the second line, “ found by the head of the depart- ment for which such appropriation has been made.” I move to strike out that language, “by the head of the de- partment for which such appropriation has been made.” This section relates to transfer of appropriations, and I think it should be left in the hands of the council to deal with that subject. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair didn’t get the motion. MR. BENNETT: I move to strike out “by the head of the department for which such appropriation has been made. ’ ’ THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bennett moves to strike out in paragraph 5, 1 1 by the head of the department for which such appropriation has been made.” Are you ready for the question? All those in favor signify by saying aye; opposed, no. Carried. Proceed. THE SECRETARY: Six. MR. MERRIAM: I would like to move to amend 11 — 6, line 4, by substi- tuting for the words “two-thirds” “a majority vote,” and on line 5, for “like vote” “a two-thirds vote of all its members. ’ ’ This section provides for setting aside of a special fund, money for particular purposes. As I understand the law now, such an ap- propriation would lapse at the end of the year. Unless you have a special provision made to prevent it lapsing in- to the general fund, it would go back there. There seems to me no reason why we should require a two-thirds vote to set aside a particular fund, or a particular source of the city revenue for that purpose. But, of course, there should be a stipulation in line 9 re- quiring a two-thirds vote in order to carry it back to its original fund. But on a question of broad policy it is not necessary that more than a majority vote should be required. I think a two- thirds vote should be required to trans- fer to a sinking fund MR. SHEPARD: It is not a sinking fund. MR. MERRIAM: It is not a sinking fund, no. It is a special fund. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is to strike out two-thirds and make it a majority. All those in favor say aye; opposed, no. It is carried. February 23 1027 1907 MR. FISHER: And a like vote to two-thirds. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, to change it wherever it appears. THE SECRETARY: 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Page 101, 14. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, under this provision the city collector and the city treasurer would be one and the same person. THE CHAIRMAN: That ought to be changed. MR. BENNETT: It should be changed; that is a mistake. There was an alternative provision drawn up by the committee covering that point. I remember it was under discussion at one meeting when I was present. MR. FISHER: The question was raised, but the committee was not clear on the matter. I don't think any alter- native provision was drawn up. MR. BENNETT: I understood there was an alternative. MR. FISHER: There is none. MR. BENNETT: I move it be with- drawn; that this provision providing for a city collector and city treasurer be withdrawn. It is a mistake to have a man who receives money account to himself. There are two offices for one person. I believe it is a great mistake to make it that way. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor of Alderman Bennett's motion sig- ify by saying aye; opposed, no. Car- ried. No. 15. THE SECRETARY: 15, 16. MR. LINEHAN: Mr. Chairman, in regard to 16, where it reads now, it is impossible to say that the moneys, the property of the school board and the library board and other organizations, that the interest on that money should also be returned to the city. THE CHAIRMAN: I think this par- agraph is a copy of the old statute. MR. LINEHAN: I know it, Mr. Chairman, but the controversy has arisen on different occasions. The comp- troller insists that the interests on the money owing to the library board and the school board shall be returned to the city. Now, I don't think the in- tention of that paragraph is to have it this way. There is no sense in hav- ing that returned that way. Can that be cleared up? THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bennett, can you clear that up? MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the operation and the interests of the va- rious bodies under this charter will be one body and the money should go into the treasury. I don't see that there is any difficulty about that. And there has never been, that I know of, Mr. Linehan. MR. LINEHAN: The point has been raised, Mr. Chairman, in each case for the library board and the school board. MR. BENNETT: The finance com- mittee has always insisted on a di- vision of that money in accordance with the appropriation. In any event, it would go back to the treasury for reappropriation. For the parks and schools the casemay be identical. There is nothing in the point. MR. LINEHAN: All right. THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed. THE SECRETARY: 17. THE CHAIRMAN: That is the same as it at present stands, I believe. THE SECRETARY: Page 102, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. Page 103, Article XII, Revenue. THE CHAIRMAN: There is a re- port here, I believe, on Revenue. MR. POST: Mr. President, I see that Mr. Ritter, president of the school board, is not here. We will have to have another session, that is certain. It seems to me that in an important mat- ter like this we ought to have such sug- gestions as he might wish to present, and for that purpose I will move that we make Sections 1 and 2 of Article XTT a special order for the opening hour of the next session of the Convention. February 23 1028 1907 THE CHAIRMAN: You desire to move that Sections 1 and 2 be made a special order for the next meeting? MR. SHEPARD: I haven’t any ob- jection to that motion if it is the dis- position to now adjourn. I simply rise to call attention to the fact that Sec- tions 1 and 2, as printed in the Pro- ceedings, are offered in lieu of Sections 1 and 2 as printed in the which have already been adopted, but that do not appear in this document. MR. POST: Where? MR. SHEPARD: In the last Pro- ceedings, any one of them. THE SECRETARY: Page 994. MR. SHEPARD: Page 994. If the gentleman will bear that in mind. MR. POST: It is not the intention of mine, Mr. Chairman, that we ad- journ now, but merely that we pass those two sections. MR. SHEPARD: That’s all right. MR. POST: And go on with the others. MR. COLE: I support Mr. Post, if he will make it the whole section. MR. POST: I will make it the whole section, as suggested by Mr. Cole. THE CHAIRMAN: Any objection to making that article a special order at 10 o’clock Monday morning? MR. SHANAHAN: All right. MR. ROSENTHAL: Do you desire to take up parts of it now? THE CHAIRMAN: Article 13. THE SECRETARY: Page 107, Ar- ticle XIII. Indebtedness. THE CHAIRMAN: Will the finan- cial gentlemen pay attention, please? THE SECRETARY: 3, 4. There is an error there. It says 14; it should be 4. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. THE SECRETARY: 5. MR. SHEPARD: Under 4, marked 14 here. I would like to have some one state the reasons for not issuing serial bonds instead of issuing bonds for the full term of twenty years. It may be wise under the new arrangements for the City of Chicago not to use serial bonds, but it has been considered by all the other authorities that it is the best procedure to follow. Under the great latitude $40,000,000 bonds may be issued, it may be — they might be is- sued — which will mature each year to equalize the distribution, and the same thing accomplished by long series. MR. BENNETT: Under the pro- posed constitutional amendment there can be no refunding of bonds except those which are now outstanding. Ac- cordingly the provision of the law and constitution which provides for an an- nual tax levy to meet the bonds that matured will be in force, so that all bonds hereafter issued will be serial bonds, or bonds for the payment of which a sinking fund will be created. The modern practice, and it is one which we follow in the city now, is to issue serial bonds. I do not apprehend there will be any difficulty on the point raised by Mr. Shepard. It will be to the interests of the city to place these serially for the reason that we will be able to issue new bonds in their place. MR. SHEPARD: Is it provided here that shall be done? MR. FISHER: Don’t you issue here serial bonds substantially similar to them? MR. BENNETT: By the constitution we are compelled to levy an annual fund. The courts held in the past where that fund was not levied under the provisions of the charter we might refund, but under the present amend- ment we are prevented from issuing new bonds. MR. SHEPARD: It is only the last thirty-two years the council is au- thorized to do that. Prior to that time they issued bonds payable only in twenty years. Under the constitutional law they levied taxes for a sinking fund to meet these bonds, the result being that if that sinking fund was not February 23 1029 1907 sufficient for their purposes it then drew only 2 per cent or 1% per cent income, while the bond outstanding paid about 4 per cent. Now, under the serial issue, you take your maturing bonds the moment the tax is collected, each year, and then reduce the finnaces of the city one- twentieth of the bond issue, and get the full benefit of the income — the earn- ing capacity of the money, i. e., 4 per cent, the interest payable on the bonds. MR. FISHER: I do not understand there is any difference as to the policy, but do you find anything in this sec- tion which prohibits that policy? MR. SHEPARD: The constitution requires that provision shall be made to retire those bonds in twenty years. .Now, it is the judgment of all finan- ciers that the serial bond is the best form. Then why not provide for meeting that bond, not only in accord- ance with the letter of the constitu- tion, but in accordance with the spirit of the constitution and good finances, and issue serial bonds only? Otherwise, you are bound to run into abuse. You either do not carry the full amount of your bonds and finally could not pay the amount of your in- debtedness, with no means of getting the new bonds, and no provision for re- tiring the old bonds. Whereas, if the serial bond is used you will constantly decrease the indebt- edness of the city and at the same time you are getting the best use of the credit of the city. It is merely a ques- tion of finance, and, in my judgment, the serial bond issue should be pro- vided for in this charter. I move that amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the amendment? MR. SHEPARD: That the bonds be issued, maturing one-twentieth each year. THE CHAIRMAN: Serial? MR. SHEPARD: Yes. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman: With the theory that we are to have the most liberal form of home rule, it does seem to me it would be a great mistake to impose any such restriction upon ourselves. While it may appear that in your particular case the serial bond is the best, and it may be so in many cases, you may admit that on other occasions bonds issued in some other form could be more desirable, and the city’s hands are tied. MR. SHEPARD: May I interrupt with a question? MR. ROSENTHAL: Certainly. MR, SHEPARD: That is true, if you issue forty-year bonds; but we must follow the constitution on the matter. MR. ROSENTHAL: Yes. MR. SHEPARD: And you must not only read your constitution, but, in con- nection with that constitution, apply those matters. MR. ROSENTHAL: In the next sec- tion it says that the city council shall, by ordinance, provide for a direct tax sufficient to pay the interest on such bonds as they fall due, and also to pay and discharge the principal thereof at the time that such principal shall fall due. MR. SHEPARD: That is the trouble with it. Your original note falls due twenty years from hence, and your sinking fund is accumulating. You are paying 5 per cent interest on your bonds and earning 2 per cent on your sinking fund. And many times it is spent and there is nothing there when your bonds are due, while it should be tied up in the hands of the city as a credit. MR. ROSENTHAL: Your motion says credit THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon Mr. Shepard’s amendment, that the bonds be issued, maturing every twenty years; in other words, serial bonds. February 23 1030 1907 MR. FISHER: It seems to me a mis- take to limit it in that way. You might want to issue five-year bonds and not want serial bonds. I agree that the twenty-year issue seems to be the best policy, but I see no reason why we should just tie our hands up in that way. If you think better to make a lesser issue, it could not be more than twenty years. We have been acting on that theory, and probably will continue un- less a good reason arises to change. MR. SHEPARD: I realize that a short-term bond might be desirable. I am not particular about the first one or two years, but inasmuch as Mr. Ro- senthal questioned, and Mr. Fisher, on the twenty-year term bond, don’t you see that you must levy one-twentieth each year? MR. FISHER: Yes. MR. SHEPARD: Then you ought to give the corresponding power and im- pose a corresponding duty of paying off one-twentieth a year. MR. FISHER: Isn’t that a matter of policy, to be decided when you come to THE CHAIRMAN: How can the reporter get a duet? MR. SHEPARD: We have a right to go into the market and purchase one- twentieth each year, but that does not take care of the finances. You pay your market price on the bond, without re- quiring the bondholder to sell. THE CHAIRMAN; The question is on Mr. Shepard’s amendment. As many as are in favor will signify by saying aye ; contrary, no. The amendment is lost. Proceed. THE SECRETARY: Page 109, 5. MR. ROBINS: I wish to ask Mr. Merriam, as I believe he is entirely fa- miliar with this section, — as to whether there is anything in the wording of the section at any place that sets the amount of the bonds, or whether or not they may be submitted to popular issue? The matter is entirely open, as I understand the reading of it, and I want to know whether that is his opinion of it? In other words, say a small issue of one hundred dollars, say. Is that correct? MR. FISHER: It is not left to in- ference. It says, any such denomina- tions, and so on, as the council may provide. It is provided expressly in the language of the statute. THE CHAIRMAN : Does that satisfy you, Mr. Robins? MR. ROBINS: I want to ask wheth- er the matter is clearly understood that the city council has power to submit bonds to popular subscription, under this provision? MR. MERRIAM: That is left to the council. MR. ROBINS: I want it left to the council. THE CHAIRMAN; Proceed. THE SECRETARY: 6, 7, 8, 9; page 110 , 10 , 11 . MR. ROSENTHAL: Section 10. It seems to me that the warrant may be issued, to be paid in the succeeding year. Then the provision here is no money shall be borrowed on warrants in any one year, unless all of the money bor- rowed on the warrants in any prior year has been paid. Now, as a matter of fact, those warrants are issued, — they must necessarily be issued before the prior warrants have been made, — as I un- derstand it. I do not think the section is clear on that point. MR. BENNETT : As I understand it, this provision does not relate to tax an- ticipation warrants. MR. MERRIAM: This says, moneys to be paid not later than the succeeding year. It does not relate to tax warrants. MR. BENNETT: It does not relate to tax anticipation warrants. THE CHAIRMAN : Proceed. THE SECRETARY: 11, 12, 13, page HI. MR. FISHER : Before we leave that section I want to call attention to the February 23 1031 1907 fact that the point raised by Mr. Rosen- thal is correct, in this extent: Appar- ently you could not issue any of these warrants provided for in section 10, the second year after you had started. You have got to get ahead of your series be- fore you can do anything. The first year they would be all retired, and you could not go beyond that. MR. BENNETT : I understood it was the intention to restrict the issue of general warrants. MR. MERRIAM : The section does not say so. MR. BENNETT; To discourage abuse of the buyer. I think the section is all right. MR. FISHER: That is the ques- tion. I did not know whether you had any special point. MR. TAYLOR: I now move that the special order of the day, for the next meeting, be the consideration of the nine- teenth section, immediately following the section on revenue; because the members of the board and Mr. Ritter will be here, and that question of education is more disputed than any other part of these. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is whether the convention wants to make any special order than the regular order, — any special order out of the regular order. Dr. Taylor moves that the sec- tion on education be taken up imme- diately after the revenue section. All those in favor will signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. It is carried. It is so ordered. MR. ROSENTHAL: I now move that we adjourn to Monday at 2 o’clock. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman is out of order. Mr. Werno has the floor. MR. WERNO: I have an amend- ment. THE CHAIRMAN : There is an amendment by Mr. Werno, which will be printed. We will now adjourn to 10 o’clock Monday morning. MR. BROWN : Are you aware that there is a republican primary at that date? THE CHAIRMAN: It does not take place until 12 o’clock. And convention stood adjourned to meet Monday, February 25th, 1907, at 10 o’clock a. m. February 23 1032 1907 Resolutions offered from the floor of the Convention. BY. MR. SHEPARD: Resolved, That in any act providing for the formation and disbursement of the police pension fund the following provision be incorporated: That the members of the police de- partment to be included in the bene- fits of such pension fund shall be as follows: The General Superintendent of Po- lice, Assistant General Superintendent of Police, Inspectors, Captains, Lieu- tenants, Sergeants, Patrolmen, Patrol Drivers, Superintendent of Horses, Su- perintendent of Construction, Superin- tendent Bureau of Identification, As- sistant Superintendent Bureau of Iden- tification, Secretary of the Police De- partment, Private Secretary.to the Gen- eral Superintendent of Police, Police Custodian Stolen Property, Chief Clerk Secretary's office, Clerk in Secretary's office, Chief Clerk in Detective Bu- reau, Chief Operator, Assistant Chief Operator, Operators, Drillmaster, Chief Matron, Matrons, Feed Inspector, De- partment Printer, Vehicle Inspectors, Photographer, Assistant Photographer, Stenographers, Supply Drivers, Finger Print Expert a'nd such other mem- bers as may hereafter be provided for by ordinance. BY MR. BENNETT: Resolved, that the present laws re- lating to firemen's pensions be retained and included in the charter. BY MR. BROWN: Permission shall not be given to any person to retail any goods, fruit or vegetables from a wagon or other vehicle. BY MR. SNOW: Amend proposition 1, Section 16, Pub- lic Utilities, by striking out all after the word “city" in line 11, and insert- ing in lieu thereof the following: “also to docks and wharves." BY MR. SHEDD: Resolved, That in cases where a po- lice officer, in the actual discharge of his duty, is charged with an offense, such as murder, manslaughter, or other serious charge, or charges, that the Common Council shall appropriate a sufficient fund for attorney's fees to. the end that such officer shall be prop- erly represented in court, and the truth of said allegations brought out. BY MR. VOPICKA: RESOLVED: That the City of Chi- cago be given power in condemnation proceedings to make the assessments for benefits payable in such number of annual installments as the City Coun- cil shall by ordinance determine, not to exceed twenty in number, and to issue bonds for the anticipation of such assessments payable out of the pro- ceeds of the collection thereof, and to sell such bonds at not less than par, for the creation of a special fund to be used in the payment of the awards for property taken or damaged through such condemnation proceedings. BY MR. VOPICKA: Resolved: That the City of Chicago shall have power to appropriate and set aside out of the moneys received through general taxation or from mis- cellaneous sources, as a special fund to be used only for the repair or re- pavement of such streets as have been February 23 1033 1907 paved by special assessment since July 1, 1901, and such streets as shall here- after be so paved. BY ME. YOPICKA: Resolved: That the City of Chicago shall have power to create a special fund to be used for the purpose of guaranteeing the prompt payment at maturity of all special assessment bonds of the City of Chicago issued since January 1, 1903. BY MR. VOPICKA: Resolved: That the City of Chicago shall have power to levy assessments for improvements according to the pres- ent Special Assessment law with the lollowing amendment: In cases where the amount of an assessment for widening or opening of a street or streets exceeds the sum of $500,000, then the assessment is to be divided in the following manner: 10 per cent, of the amount to be levied on the property facing the streets where the improvement is made and 90 per cent, of the assessment to be levied pro rata on all the real estate property in Chicago. BY MR. PENDARVIS: Resolved, That the charter shall con- tain a provision preserving the integ- rity of prohibition districts established by ordinance of the city, and providing that the City Council shall have no power to modify or abolish any such prohibition district until the proposi- tion to so modify or abolish any such district shall, upon a petition of not less than 20 per cent, of the legal voters then residing within any such district, be submitted to and be ap- proved by a majority of all the legal voters residing within such prohibition district. BY MR. WERNO: Reconsider the vote by which para- graph 3, Section II, on page 593, pro- viding that “members of the Board of Education shall serve without compen- sation” was passed for the purpose of submitting the following as a substi- tute for said paragraph: Paragraph 3. Section II. The members of the Board of Educa- tion shall be paid such compensation as the City Council may by ordinance provide. BY MR. BENNETT: Resolved, That the present pension laws relating to policemen be retained and included in the charter. BY MR. J. W. ECKHART: Resolved, That it is the sense of this Convention that the present pension law providing for a pension system of em- ployes of the Chicago Public Library be included in the proposed charter for the City of Chicago. BY MR. McCORMICK: The mayor shall, as often as yearly, and may as often as semi-annually, ap- point certified public accountants, to ex- amine and audit the accounts of the city, and the report thereof, together with any recommendation of such ac- countants, as to change in the business methods of the city, or of any of its de- partments, officers, or employes, shall be made to the mayor and City Coun- cil, and be spread upon the records of the latter. The expenses of such audit shall be paid by the city. Report of the COMMITTEE on MU- NICIPAL ELECTIONS, APPOINT- MENTS and TENURE of OFFICE: Lessing Rosenthal, Chairman Chicago Charter Convention: Gentlemen — Your Committee on Mu- nicipal Elections, Appointments and Tenure of Office, to which was referred February 23 1034 1907 the subject of Civil Service, begs leave to report: That the provisions of the present Civil Service Act shall be incorporated in the charter with the following changes or additions: (1.) That the term of office of the Civil Service Commissioners shall be six (6) years, one to be appointed every two (2) years. (2.) Section —.—REMOVALS, RE- DUCTIONS AND SUSPENSIONS. No person shall be removed from the classi- fied civil service nor reduced in grade or compensation, except as hereinafter provided. Removals from the classified civil ser- vice or reduction in grade or compensa- tion, or both, may be made in any de- partment of such service by the appoint- ing power, to promote the efficiency of the service, or for other proper cause, in the manner following: The person sought to be removed shall be served with a copy of the order of removal and notice of suspension from such service and also written specifications; and such person shall have not less than three, nor more than seven days, to an- swer the same in writing. A copy of the order, specifications and answer, if any, shall be filed with the Civil Service Com- mission, which shall approve or disap- prove of such order. Said commission may, and upon the written request of the person sought to be removed, shall investigate any removal or reduction, or proposed removal or reduction, either by or before itself, or by or before some officer or board appointed by said com- mission, to conduct such investigation. Such suspension shall be without pay, provided, however, that said commission in case of a disapproval may direct that pay shall be restored. All findings and decisions by said commission, or of the investigating officer, or board, when ap- proved by said commission, shall be final, and shall be certified to the ap- pointing officer and shall be forthwith enforced by such officer. Reductions in grade or compensation, or both, shall be made in the like man- ner, as near as may be, but without sus- pension, pending such approval or dis- approval. A copy of said papers in each case shall be made a part of the record of the division of the service in which the removal or reduction is made. Nothing in this act shall limit the pow- er of any officer to suspend a subordi- nate without pay for cause assigned in writing, a copy of which shall be de- livered to such subordinate. Such sus- pension shall be for a reasonable period not exceeding thirty days, and any sus- pension may be investigated by said Civil Service Commission. In the course of any investigation provided for in this section, each member of the Civil Service Commission, or of any board so appointed by it, and any inves- tigating officer so appointed, shall have the power to administer oaths, and said commission shall have the power to se- cure by its subpoena both the attend- ance and testimony of witnesses, and the production of books and papers rele- vent to such investigation. Nothing in this section shall be con- strued to require charges or investiga- tions in the case of laborers. (3.) Section— .—PROMOTIONS. The commission shall, by its rules, provide for promotions in such classified service, and shall provide that vacancies shall be filled by promotion, in all cases where, in the judgment of the commis- sion, it shall be for the best interests of the service so to fill such vacancy. If, in the judgment of the commission, it is not for the best interests of the ser- vice to fill such vacancy by promotion, then such vacancy shall be filled by an original entrance examination; provi- ded, however, that the commission shall in its rules fix upon a credit based upon seniority and ascertained merit in ser- vice to be given to all employes in the February 23 1035 1907 classified service in line of promotion who submit themselves to such original examination. All promotional examina- tions shall be limited to such members of the next lower rank or grade as de- sire to submit themselves to such exami- nation. The method of examination and the rules governing the same and the method of certifying in promotion shall be the same as provided for appli- cants for original appointment. Section — . — No applicant for exami- nation for any office or place of employ- ment in said classified service shall wil- fully or corruptly, by himself or in co- operation with one or more other per- sons deceive the said commission with reference to his identity, or wilfully or corruptly make false representations in his application for such examination, or commit any fraud for the purpose of im- proving his prospects or chances in such examination. Respectfully submitted, LESSING ROSENTHAL, Chairman. The following have been referred to the Law Committee: XII. REVENUE. BY MR. SHEPARD: 12-1. The City Council of the City of Chicago shall annually in the first quar- ter of its fiscal year by ordinance levy a general tax on all real and personal property not exempt from taxation for all corporate purposes, including gen- eral city, school, park and library pur- poses, not exceeding in the aggregate, exclusive of the amounts levied for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, five per centum of the assessed value of the tax- able property of said city as assessed and equalized according to law for cor- porate purposes. The said City Council in its said annual levy shall specify the respective amounts levied for the pay- ment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, the amount levied for general city purposes, the amount levied for educational pur- poses, the amount levied for school building purposes, the amount levied for park purposes and the amount levied for library purposes. A certified copy of such ordinance shall be filed in the county clerk’s office. The county clerk shall extend upon the collector ’s war- rant all of such taxes, subject to the limitation herein contained, in a single column as the City of Chicago tax. In case the aggregate amount levied, ex- clusive of the amounts levied for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, shall exceed five per centum of such assessed value, such excess shall be disregarded, and the residue only treated as certified for extension. In such case all items in such tax levy, except those for the payment of bonded indebtedness and the interest on bonded indebtedness, shall be reduced pro rata. The tax so extended shall be collected and enforced in the same manner and by the same officers as state and county taxes, and shall be paid over by the officers collecting the same to the city treasurer. The city treasurer of the City of Chicago shall keep separate funds in conformity to said tax levy, which funds shall be paid out by him upon order of the proper au- thority for the purposes only for which the same were levied. 12-2. The Board of Education, the Board of Park Commissions and the Board of Library Directors, of the City of Chicago, respectively, shall each, yearly, upon the request of the City Council, prepare and transmit to it a statement of its receipts and expenditures for the current or preceding fiscal year (as the case may be), stating therein the sources of its receipts and the several objects and purposes of its expenditures. It shall also, upon such request, prepare and transmit to the City Council an esti- mate of its expenditures for the ensuing fiscal year, stating therein the several February 23 1036 1907 objects and purposes of such expendi- tures. BY MR. SHEPARD: Whereas, the charter for the city con- tains provisions for the levy and exten- sion of city, school, park and library taxes, and the provisions contained in section two of an act entitled “An act | for the levy and extension of taxes,” in force July 1, 1905, are no longer neces- sary and are in conflict with the purposes of the charter provisions aforesaid, Therefore be it Resolved that this Con- vention recommend to the General As- sembly the enactment of the following bill into law: A BILL. For an act to repeal Section 2 of an act entitled, “An act concerning the levy and extension of taxes,” approved May 9, 1901, in force July 1, 1901, as amend- ed by an act approved March 29, 1905, in force July 1, 1905. Section 1. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, repre- sented in the General Assembly, that Sec- tion two of an act entitled, “An act con- cerning the levy and extension of taxes, ’ f approved May 9, 1901, in force July 1, 1901, as amended by an act approved March 29, 1905, in force July 1, 1905, be and the same hereby is repealed. BY MR, GREENACRE: Amend Section 1 of Article 12 (page 104) by inserting therein immediately after the words “levied for library pur- poses” and before the words “certified copy of such ordinance,” the following sentence : Said City Council shall have power to set aside from any such specified amount levied for any of said purposes, parts thereof, together not exceeding one per cent thereof, and contribute the same to pension funds for disabled, retired or superannuated public servants of any de- partment toward the maintenance of' which such specified amount levied ap- plies. BY MR. WERNO: Amend article XXII, section 5, to read as follows: This act, together with the two sepa- rate acts herewith recommended, rela- tive to the dispensing of intoxicating liquors by social organizations and for the observance of Sunday in the City of Chicago, shall upon their adoption as hereinafter provided, constitute the char- ter of the City of Chicago. CORRECTIONS BY MR. SHANAHAN: Page 901, strike out “that” after “November”, in twentieth line, second column. BY MR. SHANAHAN: Page 928, strike out “That has not been voted upon”, first column, 7th paragraph, third line. BY MR. SHANAHAN: Page 968, first column, second para- graph, fifth line, change “debated” to ‘ ‘ adopted * \ At page 976, first column, fifth line, change ‘ * Eaton ” to “ Ela ’ ’. BY MR. ROSENTHAL: Page 989, second column, fifth para- graph, strike out word ‘ * excepting f 1 in third line and substitute ‘ ‘ not includ- ing, however ’ \ February 23 1037 1907 SPEDIAL ORDERS Art. 12? — Revenue. Page 103 of draft. (Monday, Feb. 25, at 10 o’clock a. m.) Art. 19 — Department of Education. Page 130 of draft. (To be taken up immediately after disposition of the sub- ject of Revenue.) COMMUNICATION Milton J. Foreman, Chairman Chicago Charter Convention, Chicago, 111. : Dear Sir: — I regret that absence from the city will prevent my attending the sessions of the charter convention Fri- day afternoon and Saturday of this week. I should like, however, to embody in the record my objections to chapter 3 of the proposed charter, relating to primary elections. This chapter I find was approved at the end of a recent session, practically without debate and without any substantial consideration by the convention. Chapter 3 is, as I understand, prac- tically the present state law which re- lates to certain state officers, adapted so as to apply to city officers, with a fur- ther provision that the candidate receiv- ing the highest number of votes, provided the number is in excess of thirty-five per cent of all the votes cast for the office, shall be declared the nominee. It has been my understanding that the state primary law, after which chap- ter 3 is modeled, was merely the first step in primary reform in Illinois, and that further amendments would be made to this law, as defects developed in prac- tical operation. Inasmuch as we have had but a partial test of the law, we have had no opportunity as yet to de- termine its defects. In view of the ex- perimental character of the present pri- mary law, I am opposed to locking into the charter all the details of this law. I believe that the matter of arranging the details of any primary election law should be left with the legislature. The charter might contain certain limitations as to the provisions of a primary law, but it seems to me unwise to put into the charter the many details as to th6 conduct of the primary elections which are embodied in chapter 3. The charter might, for instance, provide that an) primary law which should be passed ap- plicable to Chicago should provide for direct plurality nomination, provided the candidate received at least thirty-five per cent of the total vote cast for the office. It might provide that no primary elec- tion law should be passed, nor should any such law be amended, which un- dertook to change this thirty-five per cent provision or which undertook to change certain other provisions which might be specified, without a referendum to the people of the City of Chicago. With respect to the details of the law, as set forth in chapter 3, I con- sider it extremely unwise to provide for the naming of delegates by primary elec- tion, districts in the nomination of mayor and city treasurer. The naming of del- egates by primary election districts is not, in my opinion, so objectionable in connection with the nomination of aider- man. The tests of the present state pri- mary law as applied to nominations for members of the state legislature and to nominations for congress, has proved February 23 1038 1907 fairly satisfactory. But in these nomi- nations the number of primary election districts is comparatively small, so that a candidate can, •without excessive labor, place a delegate ticket in each of the primary districts. Inasmuch as the number of primary election districts in each ward will not be great, it would not be a hardship up- on a candidate for alderman to be re- quired to provide a delegate ticket in each of the primary election districts in his ward. He would be on a parity with the members of the legislature and members of congress. With respect, however, to nominations for mayor and city treasurer, who must be nominated by the city at large, the requirement that a delegate ticket must be named for each primary election dis- trict in the city, imposes such a burden upon a candidate that he would have no chance of winning the nomination unless he had back of him the political organization of the party or of a very substantial faction thereof. With sev- enty wards, assuming, for illustration, that the seventy wards averaged seven primary election districts each, there would be four hundred and ninety pri- mary districts in the city; in each of which a candidate would be required to name a delegate ticket in order to pre- serve his rights in the convention, should any candidate fail to secure the requisite thirty-five per cent plurality. This bur- den of naming such a large number of separate delegate tickets would deny to many candidates the right to a fair op- portunity to contest for the nomination. If the details of a city primary law are to be embodied in the charter at all, I wish to submit that the delegate dis- trict in nominations for mayor and city treasurer should be the ward and not the primary district. A delegate ticket should be named for each ward. If, for instance, each ward averaged ten dele- gates, it would thus be necessary to ar- range for but seventy delegate tickets, and it would be a comparatively easy matter for any candidate to find ten men in each ward who would be willing to stand as delegates in his behalf. A candidate under this plan would find it necessary to arrange for but seventy del- egate tickets, one in each ward, instead of arranging for four hundred and ninety delegate tickets, on the assumption of an average of seven primary districts to each ward. The delegate ticket receiv- ing the plurality of the votes in the ward would be elected. My suggestion, therefore, would con- template the making of the primary elec- tion district the unit for delegate tickets in the nomination of aldermen, and the ward the unit for delegate tickets in the nomination of mayor and city treas- urer. Respectfully submitted, W. CLYDE JONES. February 23 1039 1907 RESOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO AMENDMENT OF STATE CONSTITUTION Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Illinois, the Senate concurring there: in That there shall be submitted to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection at the next election of members of the General Assem- bly, a proposition to amend the Constitution of this State as follows: Resolved, That Article IV of the Constitution of this State be amended by ading thereto a section to be numbered and known as Section 34, and reading as follows, to-wit: Section 34. The General Assembly shall have power, subject to the condi- tions and limitations hereinafter contained to pass any law (local, special or general) providing a scheme or charter of local municipal government for thei territory now or hereafter embraced within the limits of the City of Chicago. The law or laws so passed may provide for consolidating (in whole or in part) in the municipal government of the City of Chicago, the powers now vested in the city, board of education, township, park and other local governments and authorities having jurisdiction confined to or within said territory, or any part thereof, and for the assumption by the City of Chicago of the debts and liabilities (in whole or in part) of the governments or corporate authorities whose functions within its territory shall be vested in said City of Chicago and may| authorize said city in the event of its becoming liable for the indebtedness of two or more of the existing municipal corporations lying wholly within said City of Chicago, to become indebted to an amount (including its existing indebtedness and the indebtedness of all municipal corporations lying wholly within the limits of said city, and said city’s proportionate share of the indebtedness of said county and sanitary district which share shall be determined in such manner as the General Assembly shall prescribe) in its aggregate not exceeding five per centum of the full value of the taxable property within its limits as ascertained by the last assessment either for State or mimicipal purposes previous to the incurring of such indebtedness (but no new bonded indebtedness, other than for refunding purposes, shall be incurred until the proposition therefor shall be consented tb by a majority of the legal voters of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special) ; and may provide for the assessment of property and the levy and collection of taxes within said city for corporate purposes in accordance with the principles of equality and uniformity prescribed by this Constitution; and may abolish all offices, the functions of which shall be otherwise provided for; and may provide for the annexation of territory to or disconnection of territory from said City of Chicago by the consent of a majority of the legal voters (voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special) of the said city and of a majority of the voters of such territory, voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special, and in case the General Assembly shall create municipal courts in the City of Chicago it may abolish the offices of Justices of the Peace, Police Magistrates and Constables in and for the territory within said city and may limit the jursi diction of Justices of the Peace in the territory of said County of Cook outside of said city to that territory, and in such case the jurisdiction and practice of said municipal courts shall be such as the General Assembly shall prescribe; and the February 23 1040 1907 General Assembly may pass all laws which it may deem requisite to effectually provide a complete system of local municipal government in and for the City of Chicago. No law based upon this amendment to the Constitution, affecting the municipal government of the City of Chicago, shall take effect until such law shall be con- sented to by a majority of the legal voters of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special; and no local or special law based upon this amendment affecting specially any part of the City of Chicago shall take effect until consented to by a majority of the legal voters of such part of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special. Nothing in this section contained shall be construed to repeal, amend or affect Section Four (4) of Article XI of the Constitution of this State. Adopted by the House, April 22, 1903. Concurred in by the Senate, April 22, 1903. (JNWERSITY of ILLINOIS PROCEEDINGS OP THE Chicago Charter Convention CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25,190T Glljtrago GUjartrr Ghmwtttixm Convened, December 12, 1 900 HEADQUARTERS 171 WASHINGTON STREET Milton J. Foreman Chairman Alexander h. Revell. . . Vice-Chairman M. L. McKinley Secretary Henry Barrett Chamrerlin, asst. Sect February 25 1043 1907 PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Regular Meeting, Monday, February 25, 1907 10 O’clock A. M., in the City Council Chamber OFFICIAL RECORD Published by authority of the Chicago Charter Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: The Convention will be in order and the secretary will call the roll. Present — Foreman, Chairman, and Badenoch, Beebe, Bennett, Brown, Burke, Cole, Dever, Dixon, G. W., Dixon, T. J., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Fisher, Greenacre, Guerin, Hill, Hoyne, Hunter, Lathrop, Linehan, MacMillan, McGoorty, McKinley, Mer- riam, Michaelis, O’Donnell, Owens, Paullin, Pendarvis, Post, Raymer, Rob- ins, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Shepard, Snow, Taylor, Vopicka, White, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 43. Absent — Baker, Beilf uss, Brosseau, Carey, Church, Clettenberg, Crilly, Erickson, Gansbergen, Graham, Haas, Harrison, Jones, Kittleman, Lundberg, McCormick, Oehne, Powers, Rainey, Revell, Rinaker, Ritter, Sethness, Shedd, Smuslki, Sunny, Swift, Thompson, Walker, Werno, Wilson — 31. THE CHAIRMAN: We lack .three of a quorum. We have a communica- tion here from Senator Jones, which is printed in the proceedings, which he desires to have called to the attention of the convention, and which the secre- tary will read. (The secretary then read Mr. Jones’ communication, as contained on page 1,037.) THE CHAIRMAN: The chair sug- gests that we are within two of a quo- rum now. That is pretty close for us to get within an hour of the time set. MR. FISHER: We might have that read over again. THE CHAIRMAN: Either that, or Mr. Fisher might make a speech; the chair would suggest the latter as a mat- ter of novelty. MR. SHEPARD: We want a quorum, Mr. President. MR. J. W. ECKHART: I suggest a speech by Mr. Fisher. February 25 1044 1907 MR. FISHER: If it would save any time, we might get up a convention to nominate an alderman for the Third Ward. THE CHAIRMAN: Would you be eligible? MR. FISHER: No, although I might be able to keep you here this evening. MR. SHANAHAN: There is a quo- rum here now. THE CHAIRMAN: Conventions have been taking a good deal of your thought lately, Mr. Fisher. We can take up one more question until we get a quo- rum.. MR. SHANAHAN: Four came in since you said you lacked three. MR. RAYMER: Mr. McGoorty and Senator Dixon and one other have ar- rived. THE CHAIRMAN: That makes 37. In the meantime the Secretary will read Article XII. There seems to be no reason why it should not be discussed by the Convention pending the ‘time a quorum comes. MR. HUNTER: There is a quorum here now. THE CHAIRMAN: Proced, Mr. Sec- retary. I believe Mr. Shepard proposed a substitute for the first two para- graphs of Section 12. Am I correct? MR. ROBINS: Where is that pub- lished, Mr. Chairman? THE CHAIRMAN: Page 103, Article XII. MR. SHEPARD: Section 1 of Article XII, in the report as amended by the committee on procedure and plan, and so forth, after the old report was print- ed, and one or two other amendments, one of which struck out the township petition, and the other petitions in- serted in the blank, 5 per cent, after- wards adopted by the Convention, so that the draft on page 1035 of the Pro- ceedings of last Saturday is a redraft of the original Section 1, with those j provisions in, namely the redraft com- plete of Section 2, on the same page, as a consolidation of Sections 2, 3 and 4 in the printed book, which, by order of the committee on procedure and plan, were consolidated after the report was print- ed, so they appear on page 1035 of the Proceedings of Saturday in one section. You will notice that one section cov- ers the same provisions provided for in the three sections, except that they con- solidate it, providing that the board of education and board of park com- missioners and board of library direct- ors shall file reports instead of covering the same subject in three sections. I don’t know whether these two sec- tions were adopted the other day or not. If there is any doubt about that, Mr. Chairman, I move you that Sections 1 and 2, on page 1035, be adopted. MR. ROBINS: Ar there any substi- tutions, Mr. Chairman, for the accept- ance of this draft? MR. POST: That was on page 103. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, page 103. MR. SHEPARD: It is. THE CHAIRMAN: The original re- port; he refers to the proceedings of the meeting of last Saturday. MR. POST: That was the last re port. THE CHAIRMAN: It is printed on page 1035 of the Proceedings of the 23d of the month. MR. POST: Mr. President, I did not know that they were printed there, and I do not know that any changes have been made whicfi will affect the motion I now wish to make. Mr. President, I asked on Friday that these sections go over, and either the two sections or the whole article were put over until today, and made a special order for this morn- ing, in order that Mr. Ritter; the presi- dent of the school board, might be here. I find on communication with him that he would be here if it were at all pos- sible, but he has demands upon him February 25 1045 1907 which might make it impossible for him to come at this time. I do not wish to delay; I am not prepared to make the argument that he would make, nor am I sure that he would cover the ground that I would cover. But if you will allow me to make the motion from the original draft on page 103, which Mr. Shepard tells me is not changed in the particulars I wish to move — I will move that on line 4, on page 104, after the words ‘ 1 educational purposes” insert “which shall not be less than per cent of the assessed and equalized value taxed for the property.” I think that will put it in proper form. Now, in the next line, after the words “school building purposes,” in- sert “which shall be not less than certain per cent of the equalized value taxed for property.” Now, I do not wish to take up the time of the Convention in discussing that. I will merely explain that ob- jections are raised, the value of which I am not especially advised of, affecting the amount to be appropriated to school purposes, leaving the matter entirely in the discretion of the city council, of any city council that might happen to be voted into office, and that the charter ought to provide, as I am advised, for a minimum percentage of the taxes to be applied for school purposes, part of it to building purposes and part of it to educational purposes; and I now make a motion to bring that matter before the house. I leave the percentage blank;, that can be filled in, if we adopt this mo- tion, and if it is not adopted it will not be necessary to put it in. Unless some one wishes to speak on it, Mr. President, I will ask for a roll call now on that motion. MR. BENNETT: Tt seems to me this would be a step backwards. We are attempting to consolidate the various bodies, and making one corporation, as the City of Chicago. Now, so far as the amendment relates to the question of school buildings, it should not go in, because it is contem- plated under this charter that the school buildings will be constructed out of money raised on bonds, and the bond question was not involved in this sec- tion. Now, as to fixing the minimum amount, I would say that if anything was to be done that there should be a maximum amount fixed, in order to pre- vent the general fund being depleted for the sake of giving the schools more money than they may require. The tendency always is, and has been, to allow the board of education the full amount of its necessities. There is a feeling with reference to the schools on the part of every citizen and on the part of every member of the city council with whom I have come in contact, which leads to the most lib- eral treatment of the question. The tendency is to over-appropriate for the schools, rather than to under-appro- priate. Now, if we attempt to divide up and say that the school shall have so much and the library so much and the parks so much, you will tie the hands of the council at various times when this money may not be needed for those purposes, and will prevent such a raise of the taxes that they might raise un- der this section. Under the proposed plan, 5 per cent by comparison with our present con- dition, there will be an increase in the revenue of approximately $6,000,000 per year. This amount is left to the council to appropriate, and will enable it to meet the situation as it may arise with reference to parks, schools or li- brary, or such as the necessities are each year, as they present themselves. Not to adopt this, as I said at the out- February 25 1046 1907 set, would be a step backward, and to bring the matter before the convention, I move that that section be adopted as printed. MR. POST: I raise a point of order. That is the main motion. We ought not to get tangled up in this way; it cuts us off from other amendments. The main motion' is that, as printed, it should be adopted. MR. FISHER: It seems to me that that question ought to be discussed here, that it is difficult to vote intelligently upon it unless some suggestion is made with regard to these percentages. I cannot assume that the point of order that Mr. Post suggests is correct; the test of the question is largely whether or not the percentage can properly be fixed, and if so, what that percentage would be. We ought to have some basis of estimate on this thing for the schools, for instance. MR. POST: Will the gentleman al- low an interruption? MR. FISHER: Yes. MR. POST: I suppose some of the gentlemen here are familiar with the finances of the city, and can very well estimate what that ought to be. We are now expending in the neighborhood of eleven millions, all told, for school purposes, and that is financial starva- tion for the schools. The object is to get the minimum amount of money which shall keep our schools in such condition as they should be. Now, what that will be I cannot say. Probably some of the gentlemen here can tell us. MR. FISHER: As I said before, I do not care to argue on the question as raised by Mr. Post; I prefer to hear what is to be said on this subject. If it is suggested that the schools should get a percentage of the gross amount, we want to get an estimate of what the percentage will be, what it would be necessary to have for that purpose. I think that should be done. If there are people in the convention that can make that suggestion, it ought to be easy enough. Therefore, I would like to know what the percentages amount to; then we can discuss it. MR. COLE: Brushing aside the mat- ter of percentages, as I understand, the question is simply this: It takes the school board and the library board, and all those other boards, and puts the whole thing in the hands of the com- mon council to decide what shall be done. The only question is as to whether we shall tie the common council up by this charter. I am in favor of leaving it all to the common council. MR. WHITE: I am personally in favor of Mr. Post’s motion, and should have made a similar one if he had not made it. Speaking, first, as to what this min- imum ought probably to be, that, of course, is a question that should be care- fully threshed out by some special com- mittee, if the minimum should be fixed. I would call your attention to the fact that the schools have been accustomed to have about 160 or 161, which, I think, is the largest amount under the Juul law, since the Juul law was in ex- istence. Possibly, as a tentative propo- sition, 170 or 175, or even something less, as a minimum for the schools, would be a fair proposition; and I don’t think it would be proper to tie the hands of the city council any more than is absolutely necessary. Let me call your attention to one or two things in connection with this prop- osition in the bill, as drafted. First, the question of a sufficient amount of revenue for the schools. It is asserted here that five or six million dollars will be added to the to- tal income under this new provision. That, of course, is assumptive, and is not absolutely settled; but the point is that there might come times of stress and stringency in regard to matters February 25 1047 1907 pertaining to the city streets — certain civic improvements that might indeed be very honest and very worthy, and which a certain city council, under cer- tain conditions, might think of more importance to the city, especially if certain political considerations were in- volved, and other things, that even in the city council would be considered of more importance than the schools them- selves, and the consequences would be such, if the funds are not practically fixed. I mean to say that the carrying charges of the public school system of Chicago is practically fixed from year to year by the necessities of the case. You have got to have so many teach- ers; you have got to have so many jan- itors; you have got to have so many people employed; you have got to buy so many books; absolutely, there is no chance to change that situation. Now, I can easily see where the city council, from no ulterior motive, per- haps, but feeling the emphasis of a cer- tain civic demand, might easily divert certain funds, if there is no limitation, into the current expenses of the city that they have authority to spend money for, leaving the school board to struggle with the deficit as best they could. There would be no legal re- sponsibility for the situation. The city council could simply divert the funds, and the school board would be left help- less with a tremendous problem on its hands, a perfectly unfair situation both to the school board and the public schools of the city of Chicago. You have established by this char- ter a school board, and you have vested it with certain duties. Those duties and responsibilities — the performance of those duties depends absolutely upon a sufficient income to perform them with. Now, then, you invest the school board with the duties and responsibili- ties, and then you place the control of the situation and the control of the finances absolutely in the hands of the city council, that has no specific respon- sibility beyond the question of finances. I can see that a time might come when a deadlock might occur between the board and the educational committee of the city council in regard to the ex- penditure of school funds. I can see how this whole thing can be used by the city council to take the school board by the throat and say: “You do so and so, or we will not give you funds to do anything with, and you are helpless, and the public is helpless. ” What can you do about it? Just one thing more, Mr. Chairman — this question of building school build- ings by bond. I think this Convention ought to consider that very carefully. It looks to me like a temporary ex- pedient to relieve certain real estate interests in this city, and that we are putting ourselves in position of being perfectly willing to mortgage the fu- ture and future financial interests of this city for the purpose of escaping some immediate increase of taxation. What is the situation in regard to the schools? It is a perfectly fair propo- sition to issue bonds; for instance, for the erection of a city hall. You will only erect one city hall in 75 to 100 years, and it is perfectly proper that the future should bear some measure of that expense; but the question of the schools is entirely different. Each year the school system of Chicago has its particular burden in the line of build- ings and equipments to take care of, and each year is liable to be increased over the other. I wonder if this Convention is aware that the natural school increase is from six to seven thousand per year. That means the building of about six new school buildings each year, at a cost of not less than $1,500,000. Add to that the necessary increase for equipments and repairs to buildings, and you have February 25 1048 1907 a charge against the city income of about $2,000,000 per year that comes along each year. Now, it strikes me that it is a perfect piece of folly to mortgage the future in order to take care of this year’s two million dollars, when the people of the year in which those bonds mature would be obliged not only to meet the maturing bonds, but the two millions that are assessed by the situation against the city for that year as well. And if you estab- lish a sinking fund, this annual expendi- ture will be equal, if not quite equal, to the tax that would give you, or three million dollars that you require for your school buildings. I expect an appeal to this Conven- tion, either on the part of Mr. Post or anyone else, is futile. I honestly be- lieve, and I have the greatest respect for the members of the real estate board. They are a fine lot of fellows, but I honestly think that the question before this Convention today is whether the interest of the real estate board of Chicago should be conserved, or whether the interest of the public schools of Chicago should be conserved. I am not so impressed with the sa- qredness of the real estate of the City of Chicago that I am willing, to put all the future in jeopardy in this city in order to preserve it from some increase in taxation. If I were a member of the real estate board, undoubtedly I should be on that side. THE CHAIRMAN: Your time is up, Dr. White. MR. ROBINS: I move the unani- mous consent of the Convention that Dr. White be allowed to continue. (Cries of “Consent! Consent!”) MR. WHITE: Well, Mr. Chairman, that is about all I have to say. I am opposed to leaving this matter of the larger taxation in the hands of the city council first, because it practically places the school board, in which you have invested all the duties and re- sponsibilities, in the hands of the coun- cil, that holds the bag. In this situation, as in all others, the fellows who control the finances con- trol every other matter connected with the situation? And, secondly, it is a great danger that will always exist that some city council, under some kind of pressure, for the sake of something specific and more important, may take advantage of their power and deprive the schools of their necessary funds in order to meet some other expense. Gentlemen, it is a dangerous proposi- tion. Your streets can go unpaved for a time if need be; certain public im- provements we can get along without if we have to; but the schools must go on; the safety and sanctity of them are the life of our homes; the annual in- crease of some 6,000 children has to be taken care of with increased teaching forces. Now, of all interests in this city, our very life demands that the schools, of all other interests, shall not be placed at the hazard of any future city council. Consequently, I think this Convention ought to look very carefully into the school buildings by a bonding scheme. I believe that the future will not com- pliment you for that action, when you got each year, each year’s burden, and you have got to take care of that bur- den each year, and you might as well do it now by taxation as to evade the payment of that and then place the tax on some future generation. MR. BADENOCH: No one has greater respect toward Dr. White and his associates on the school board, and the way he has of going after results, than I have; but I must disagree with him on the proposition with reference to building school buildings with bonds. He has taken it for granted that the growth of this city will require that each succeeding generation will have February 25 1049 1907 to build as many seboolhouses as the present. That is an untenable propo- sition to my mind. The city will build up to such an extent that the popula- tion will suffer; manufactories and things of that kind are going to put a limit to the desirability of the present limits of Chicago for residential pur- poses. It is a fair proposition that the gen- eration of today should contribute its share to the schoolhouses of today, but it is not fair that the generation of to- day should build schoolhouses for their children’s children and their children’s children for generations to come. Now, I am not connected with the real estate board, nor have I any real estate that is interested. I am dis- cussing this question simply on its mer- its as a just proposition, and it seems to me to be absurd that we should build these schoolhouses when there are so many needed, and pay cash for them, instead of building them with bonds and letting the people of the future pay their share for them. Now, these schoolhouses that we are building today are good for at least a hundred years to come, some say two hundred and even three hundred years. It seems to me that Dr. White should have looked a little farther than merely to the question of building. I believe that we should issue bonds for the pur- pose of building schoolhouses for a higher reason than any he has stated, in the interests of the schools, and that is, the profession of teaching should be dig- nified and recognized to a greater ex- tent than it is now, and that there should be more money to pay good teachers and to encourage good teachers to remain in the profession, more than they have today. Now, one reason that we have not had money enough to pay for good teachers here, and one reason why we have seen young teachers with brains arriving at the point where they con- clude that there is no future for them in the profession of teaching, and they leave the profession aiyl seek some other — that of law or business, or something which offers a remuneration commensu- rate with their abilities. Now, for that reason I believe that Dr. White is making a serious mistake with those who are advocating that the schoolhouses be built with cash. I think it would be very unwise to insert this provision that Mr. Post has proposed. It seems to me that one of the main, fundamental ideas actuating the people in asking home rule is that we should have home rule, and we are in favor of representative government, and there is no danger that the representatives of the people cannot be trusted to appro- priate handsomely for the schools. There never has been a time when an appropriation for educational purposes has been refused by the city council. I challenge anyone to show anything of the kind. These appropriations have always been treated with the utmost liberality, and it seems to be a public proposition, a fair proposition, that the council may be depended on in the future, and that it would be unwise to make a limit of this kind as proposed, as attempted to- day, to fix an inelastic amount which should be appropriated for school pur- poses or building purposes, and which may in the future be found to be either inadequate or too great. MR. HOYNE: I cannot agree with my friend, Dr. White, but in approach- ing this question he always seems to have an idea that the taxpayers of Chicago do not want to pay their taxes. I want to tell you that the 450,000 taxpayers of the City of Chicago are willing to pay their taxes, provided the taxes are honestly expended. The real estate board has been re- ferred to, and you will find that in February 25 1050 1907 every instance it has been in favor of reform of taxation, and never has it gone on record as favoring any kind of law that would assist any citizen to escape taxation. The doctor does not stick exactly to the issues in this case. He says it is a question of speculation whether we receive six million dollar? more under the 5 per cent rate. It is no question of speculation; $426,263,293 is the ac- tual assesed value of 1906, and a 5 per cent rate upon that amount will give $6,000,000 more revenue. A new valua- tion is to be made for the year 1907, and upon the 1907 valuation you will get at least an increase of 10 per cent more. This year, 1907, the board of asses- sors makes a new valuation of all the property in the City of Chicago, and it is only reasonable to suppose that in four years the natural increase will give an increase of at least 10 per cent upon these figures. Furthermore, this question has been gone over by the special committee and been considered on the facts, and we have dealt with facts only, not with speculation, but in facts. Under these figures we estimate that the school board would receive over three million dollars increase. It is not a speculation, gentle- men; but if you take the figures for 1907, I estimate instead of six million dollars you will have an increase of eight million dollars. Furthermore, the municipal revenue conlmittee discussed this matter all last summer and agreed upon a 4 y 2 per cent rate, and so reported to this Convention, and after that the special committee took this matter up, and in order to be liberal with the departments of city gov- ernments, and more than fair, we agreed to increase the rate one-half of 1 per cent, and came in here with the 5 per cent rate. Now, you come here and say you want a special sum set aside for the school board. Are the schools more important than the health of the City of Chicago? There may be a time possibly when an epidemic might rage through the city, when the interests of the city should demand a larger sum to be devoted to protecting the health of its citizens, than to the public schools. It seems to me, Mr. President, that this is impor- tant. There should not be any amount set aside for any department. We have left everything else to the city council. We believe in local self-government; we have confidence in the city council to leave it in their power to separate these funds. I think that is the only proper and businesslike way to handle this matter. I am opposed to setting aside any fixed amounts. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon Mr. Post’s amendment. MR. POST: One word before the roll is called. I wish to direct the atten- tion of the Convention to the fact that the school expenditures and expendi- tures for public health are upon very different bases. Extraordinary expendi- tures will be necessitated — may be necessitated to protect public health, and cannot be so well fixed — the amount cannot. Now, school expenditures have a normal increase and can be very readily estimated. What I arose for more particularly was to emphasize one point made by Dr. White, emphasize one sentence, one remark of Mr. Cole’s and Mr. Bennett’s as to the object of this charter. If the object of this charter is to con- solidate the different boards into one, that is what we ought to know. Well, then, if you are going to do that you will have to change the educational chapter, which will probably come up next, change it very materially. Dr. White referred to a section to which he alluded as No. 22, page 134, which provides that “the board of education February 25 1051 1907 shall exercise general supervision and management of the public education and the public school system of the City of Chicago, and shall have the power to make suitable provisions for the establishment and maintenance throughout the year, or for such por- tion of the year as it may direct, of schools of all grades and kinds, includ- ing normal schools, schools for de- fectives and delinquents, parental or truant schools, schools for the blind, the deaf and the crippled, schools or classes in manual training, construc- tional and avocational teaching, domes- tic arts and physical culture, vacation and extension schools and lecture courses, and all other educational insti- tutions and facilities. Now, that was considered by the committee, and if it is to be argued here that because that was considered by the committee, and carefully con- sidered by them, that we should adopt it, why, possibly we will have to adopt it when we reach that point. But if you do adopt that and do not adopt my amendment, why, you will lay the foun- dation, Mr. President, I think I can as- sure you, of introducing into the school management of the City of Chicago that which does not exist in it now, and that which so many people of the City of Chicago are protesting that they do not want shall exist in it, namely, politics. If you are going to have responsibil- ity for the management of the school system placed upon a board, and then you are going to tie up the purse strings and give the city council the absolute power over the purse without any limitation, without any minimum limitation, you are compelling the school board to come to this council and beg of it; and unless the school board has something that will gain it recog- nition, some political consideration or something like that, it will be a starved school board just as it has been pre- viously. Let me say for the benefit of Aider- man Badenoch — I cannot speak from the records; I have not the records here — but I can say on very good au- thority, which can be proved by the rec- ords — that before the present board came in the old board made a demand that was far short of what was really needed for school purposes, and the city council cut that down very consider- ably and allowed the new board to come in facing a deficit. Now, let me say in conclusion, that if you should place the responsibility for the school board management in the hands of the city council, if you should put the control of the finances absolutely in the hands of the city coun- cil, that you are giving the council un- limited control of the finances, give it the unlimited control of the school sys- tem so that the responsibility shall rest with those that control the purse strings. MR. BENNETT: I would like to make a brief statement in answer to the last speaker, and that is the statement made that the city council cut down the appropriation of the last school board, so that a deficit is now the result of the action of the city council. I want to say that that statement, from whom- soever it may have come, is absolutely untrue. I want to say, under the pres- ent revenue law the giving to the school board of the estimate based on the past has affected the rate of in- come of the City of Chicago. Notwith- standing that fact, the city council has always given to the school board every dollar it could, and there is no danger but that in the future it will do the same. It is just as much interested, the city council has just as much inter- est in this, and is just as close to the people and the scholars and families of this city as are the members of the February 25 1052 1907 board of education. I am inclined to think a little closer, if anything. The council has shown that by its actions in the past. They have at heart the in- terests of the schools just as much as any citizen of this city, and this mat- ter could be safely rested in their hands, and the schools will not suffer, will not be permitted to suffer by it. MR. ZIMMER: During Mr. White's remarks he alluded to a deadlock be- tween the city council and the school board. This perhaps was intended for the present school committee, which has refused to O. K. or recommend certain requests from the school board. I want to say, however, the reason for that is currently reported to be that the school board has appropriated more of its building fund than it actually had to expend, and in order to place on the school committee the whole respon- sibility, it recommended this appropria- tion, in order to have it before the people — it requested from the board that it render a financial statement, showing what was the condition of its building fund. That report has been requested more than two months ago and has not yet reached the com- mittee, and by agreement with Mr. Rit- ter, chairman of the school board, we are recommending no additional appro- priations until that report reaches the committee. I want to say that the school commit- tee, of which I have been chairman for two years, has never refused any re- quest of the school board, and that they have allowed every request that has been made; and that the city council, as Alderman Bennett has just said — I think the city council — is just as much interested in and as close to the people and as anxious to see that the members of the school board receive the funds necessary, as they themselves are; and I am of the opinion that the funds of the schools will be just as safe, if not safer, in the hands of the city council as in the hands of the school board. MR. POST: I would like to ask a question, if I may be permitted. THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed. MR. POST: I would like to ask if this is not a fact, that a large appro- priation for school buildings was made more than a year ago, and that upon the application a year ago by the com- mitee, if the council did not cut down the application for funds? MR. ZIMMER: The committee on finance agreed with the president and secretary on every contention on the rate. MR. POST: A year ago? MR. ZIMMER. A year ago. MR. POST: But it was a reduction of the rate that the board applied for, was it not? MR. ZIMMER: No, sir; they put it in just as we agreed upon. MR. POST: I have not been in- formed so. THE CHAIRMAN : The Secretary will call the roll upon Mr. Post's amendment, which provides that the amount of taxation for the school should not fall below a specified per- centage. Yeas — Greenacre, Guerin, MacMillan, Owens, Post, Robins, Snow, White, Wil- kins, Young — 10. Nays — Badenoch, Beebe, Bennett, Brown, Cole, Dixon, G. W., Dixon, T. J., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eid- mann, Fisher, Hill, Hoyne, Hunter, Lathrop, Linehan, McGoorty, McKin- ley, Merriam, Michaelis, O'Donnell, Paullin, PendarVis, Raymer, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Shepard, Taylor, Yopicka, Zimmer — 30. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon Mr. Post's motion the yeas are 10 and the nays are 30. The motion is lost. The question now reverts upon Mr. Shepard's motion to adopt Sections 1 and 2, printed on February 25 1053 1307 page 1035 of the Proceedings of Febru- ary 23. ME. GREENACRE: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to lose the right to in- terpolate between Sections 1 and 2 a section which I have prepared here. I do not want to be precluded from inter- polating this section between those two. THE CHAIRMAN: This is the prop- er time to do it. MR, SHEPARD: I wish to call the attention of the Chair to the fact that Mr. Greenacre refers to another sub- ject. MR. GREENACRE: No; it relates to the distribution of revenue. MR. SHEPARD: Is this offered as an amendment? MR. GREENACRE: It offers to amend Article I by adding a section, 1-a. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary read it. THE SECRETARY: “By Mr. Green- acre: Amend Article XII by adding thereto as Section 1-a, after Section 1, the following: “Interest accruing under Section 16 of Article XI shall be distributed pro- portionately between and credited to the separate funds above provided for. “The proper authority may set aside all or any part of the interest so added to such separate fund and contribute same to pension funds for disabled, re- tired or superannuated public servants of the department toward the maintenance of which department such separate fund applies. “Provided, however, that such inter- est so contributed shall not in any year exceed 1 per cent of the principal of such separate fund . 11 THE CHAIRMAN: You offer this as a substitute? MR. GREENACRE: I offer it as an amendment to the article to be inserted as an extra section in there. MR. SHEPARD: I rise to a point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: Just a minute. On page 1036 of the Proceedings of February 23d there is an amendment to Article XII relating to the same sub- ject, is there not? MR. GREENACRE: No, that does not relate to the same thing; it is not the same. THE CHAIRMAN: It is another thing? MR. GREENACRE: It is another thing; yes, sir. MR. SHEPARD: I rise to a point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the point, sir? MR. SHEPARD: This is not an amendment to Section 1 or Section 2 at all. Mr. Greenacre does not contend that it is. It is an amendment, how- ever, but it should go in as a section of the article, and I respectfully sug- gest that, it not being germane to this section and not being offered as an amendment to this section, that we should properly proceed to dispose of Sections 1 and 2 and then consider this afterwards as a section of Article XII. MR. GREENACRE: I don’t care when it is considered, but I did not want to have you pass No. 2 without bringing this up. If it can be taken up later instead of now, all right; but you will have passed the point. THE CHAIRMAN: There is no rea- son why Mr. Greenacre ’s motion should not be taken up after we dispose of 1 and 2. MR. GREENACRE: That is all I want; if I may reserve the right, that is all I want. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? (Cries of “Question! Question!”) THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- | vor signify by saying aye; those op- February 25 1054 1907 posed, no. Mr. Shepard’s motion is adopted. MR. ‘GREENACRE: Now I offer that amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: Now Mr. Green- acre’s amendment is before the house for discussion. MR. BENNETT: I would like to hear that amendment again. THE CHAIRMAN : The Secretary will read the section once more. (The section was read by the Secre- tary.) MR. BENNETT: I desire to make a point of order, Mr, Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the point of order? MR. BENNETT: This resolution is not germane to the subject of revenue; it relates to another section. MR. GREENACRE: The only thing on pensions in this charter is in this article, Section 12; so the committee evidently thought it was germane to this article. THE CHAIRMAN: When should it be taken up, if properly taken up at all? MR. BENNETT: I think if it should be adopted it should be adopted when we get to the subject of interest on public funds. MR. GREENACRE: Section 12—8, at the bottom of the next page, seems to indicate that this should come in here. Gentlemen of the Convention, I hope we will get through today, and for that reason I will take as little time as possible. I do not think this amend- ment will depend upon long arguments or short arguments. I will endeavor to explain it to you as well as I can, and I think you will then be able to vote on it as intelli- gently as you would after one or a dozen speeches. Here is the situation: Ar- ticle I, which you have just adopted, provides, in the last sentence, that the city treasurer of the City of Chicago shall keep certain funds, which funds shall be paid out by him on the order of proper authorities, for the purposes for which they are levied. Now, I suppose the proper authorities mean the school board, as the building funds for building schoolhouses and so forth are concerned7 and the park board, as far as the funds for the park board are concerned, and so on. I take that to be the meaning; and that the treasurer shall keep such funds as he has under the old law. Now, in Section 16, of Article XI, which you have already adopted, you provide that neither the treasurer nor any other public officer having the cus- tody of public funds shall be entitled to any interest, but that it shall be paid into the city treasury. There is a prac- tically new source of revenue other than taxation. Now, in this same article to which I seek to add this language, refers to the pension matter, as far as the firemen are concerned — and there are disposed of some matters other than taxation, for insurance matters. Now, I think this, if proper, should be made at this point. Now, is the amendment itself a proper one? To that I simply wish to add this: I am not going to argue in support of pensions. You all know from your experience in public affairs whether pensions are beneficial to pub- lic service or not in any and all de- partments. I notice that pensions are growing. The pension law was passed a long time ago, and the school pension laws were passed a short time ago; in the last two sessions of the legislature two pension measures were passed, one of them in 1904 and the other in 1905. Now, there are some departments in the public service that are so small that they will not organize pension funds of their own. It seems to me there is no better time to act on this matter, in consonance with legislative trend, February 25 1055 1907 than the present moment; it seems to be a matter of public opinion that the use of money for a pension — for pen- sion purposes — is not the use of money for private purposes. It helps the serv- ice and tends to increase length of service, and keeps experienced people in the service. Arguing the pensions no further, the proposition is this: I would be glad, and I suppose you would all be glad, to see every man who spends a lifetime in the service pen- sioned. Now, heretofore we have re- ceived no revenues from interest. I am proud of this moment which would give me the opportunity to contribute. MB. BADENOCH: Could not your object be obtained by an order of the council? MB. GBEENACBE: I am in favor of limiting it. Now, then, I will admit under the powers given by this charter to the council, pensions being a public purpose, the council could curtail it if they so chose under public pressure, public service, take from the taxes di- rect or any other public fund, without regard to amounts, whether it be rea- sonable to contribute to the pension fund. I am in favor of pension funds, and more of them. I am in favor of public contributions, but I am in favor of having it come from a source other than taxation, and I am in favor of having the council limited. Now, the explanation of this is sim- ply this: If this section is passed, then the city council is not directed to pay a public penny to the public pension fund, but is given the power, which it already has, but is compelled to exer- cise it in this way. It must contribute it from the interest — from the interest it is to be contributed, and only from the interest of a particular fund is it to contribute, and then only to the per- sons superannuated, and then only to the extent in any one year of 1 per cent of that fund. Tn other words, if the treasurer gets 2 per cent from the banks, we will say, he may have at the end of the year 1 % or 1 y 2 of the entire per cent of the fund, and turn it over to the city council. It does not say that the council shall contribute 1 per cent. They could contribute any sum from that interest not over 1 per cent; and I think we are thereby doing a very good thing for the public service, and at the same time adding no burden. We are simply taking it from a wealthy fund and giving to the public service, and at the same time limiting any coun- cil, or any board of education, or any park board, or any other board, from exceeding and going wild on this sub- ject. THE CHAIBMAN : Are you ready for the question? MB. GBEENACBE: Boll call. THE CHAIBMAN: Do you want a roll call? MB. BADENOCH: I am generally in favor of the proposition of pensions, but I do not understand the question sufficiently, so I will have to vote no. THE CHAIBMAN: The Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Burke, Greenacre, Guerin, Lin- ehan, MacMillan, McKinley, O’Donnell, Owens, Pendarvis, Post, Bobins, Taylor, Yopicka, White, Zimmer — 15. Nays — Badenoch, Beebe, Bennett, Brown, Cole, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Fisher, Hill, Hoyne, Hunter, Lathrop, McGoor- ty, Merriam, Michaelis, Paullin, Bay- mer, Bosenthal, Shanahan, Shepard, Snow, Wilkins, -Young — 25. MB. LINEHAN: 1 desire to change my vote and vote aye. THE CHAIBMAN: The yeas are 15 and the nays 25, and the motion is lost. The Secretary will read 12 — 5. THE SECBETABY : What page is that? THE CHATBMAN: Page 105. February 25 1056 1907 THE SECRETARY: 12—5, 12—6, 12—7, 12—8. MR. O’DONNELL: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. O’Donnell. MR. O’DONNELL: 12—6, Streets and Alleys of the City. Have you that amendment there? THE CHAIRMAN: You say that should be added? MR. O’DONNELL: That should be added, yes. THE CHAIRMAN: They are added in my book. I think it was done by the sub-committee, Mr. O ’Donnell. Pro- ceed. THE SECRETARY: 12—7, 12—8, 12 — 9. Page 107, Article XIII. In- debtedness. THE CHAIRMAN: We have taken that up and disposed of it. MR. WHITE: I understand that 12 — 6 has been adopted. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: I want to get some information, Mr. Chairman, before we pass that entirely. I should like to know if, as this bill now stands, Mr. Chairman, there is any provision what- soever for raising'' a special fund for buildings outside of bonds. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bennett. MR. BENNETT: The council can appropriate out of the general fund for the building of buildings, and if it has sufficient income to do so, no doubt it will do so. If it cannot, it will not do so. Under these figures we have about six million. Those are actual figures. There is no chance of getting below that amount, so that if we have a lee- way, the city may use discretion. THE CHAIRMAN: The next special order was the subject of education. The Chair suggests that we take up these two short questions here on streets and public improvements. MR. POST: May I ask if, under the article of indebtedness, the subject of school building bonds is provided for, serially or otherwise. MR. BENNETT: We have the power to issue bonds either serially or other- wise. MR. TAYLOR: After revenue, the special order is Article XIX, on the de- partment of education. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you desire to take it up now? MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Senator Brown. MR. BROWN: I offered a resolution some time ago. It is on page 32, re- garding the licensing of peddlers. Would it not be as well to take it up under this section? THE CHAIRMAN: Have you that resolution? MR. BROWN: That is simply to rid the streets of a public nuisance, and I do not think it needs any comment at all. I think every man in this room understands that they are a public nuisance and litter our streets. I don’t believe that they ought to have a license. If we do not grant them a license there will be no peddling of any kind on the streets. MR. POST: Is it to prohibit street peddling? Is that it? MR. ROSENTHAL: That ought not to go into our charter. That is simply a part of the code, and ought to be left to the regulation of the city council. It may be that peddling is a nuisance, but that is a matter for the city council to regulate, and not for this Convention to regulate. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion of Mr. Brown. As many as favor it signify by saying aye; op- posed, no. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is lost. Article XIX, Department of Edu- cation, special order, page 130. MR. TAYLOR: I would call atten- tion, Mr. Chairman, to some things that should be proposed by the drafting com- February 25 1057 1907 mittee, in Section 2. The first sentence says that the board of education should consist of thirteen members, and then, a few sentences following, indicating the board shall consist of some other members — some other member. I sup- pose the drafting committee is ready for some correction of that inconsist- ency. THE CHAIRMAN: That will be cor- rected. MR. POST: There seems to be an inconsistency in this matter. I think we ought to know before sending this to the drafting committee whether the proposition is to make a complete im- mediate change in the board, or whether it is to make the change as the terms of the members expire. Under that section, as drawn, it is impossible to tell, except that the prob- abilities are that a court will decide that in order to give limitation to the fifteen members that a change must be made at once, although it would cause a most remarkable system of ap- pointments. THE CHAIRMAN: The drafting committee seems to be under the im- pression that the board should go out, and there should be a gradual displace- ment as provided, but they found some difficulty in having it mathematically figured out. MR. POST : That is the intention, is it, Mr. President? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. POST: Then I would like to ask, and this is not a drafting commit- tee question, either. Why, if the in- tention is to change the number from 21 to 15, why, the change is not made directly and without all this “now you see it and now you don't” in the pro- vision. Why not substitute four for those who go in in 1908 and four who go in in 1909 and four for those who go in in 1910, and then appoint these four for four years, so that immediately the board is changed from an appointive board of seven each year to an ap- pontive board of four. Why should there be first two and then four, and why should three be appointed, and four during the first year, so as to get seven appointees during the first changes? There may be a variety of substantial reasoning for fhis complication, but I have not been able to figure it out. MR. TAYLOR: I should like to hear the reason from Mr. Fisher as to why this was added by the drafting committee? THE CHAIRMAN: Will one of the members of the drafting committee answer that? MR. FISHER: As one of the mem- bers of the drafting committee, I rise to explain that it was done this way because it was thought that would be the simplest way to do it. MR. COLE: Has this been referred to Mr. Wilson? MR. FISHER: I think Mr. Wilson was present while it was being done, but he had not that deep interest in it that he has in another subject. The plan I supposed would be adopt- ed, in accordance with the suggestion made by Prof. Taylor, would be to pro- vide to go on with these changes as provided here, and then strike out the first sentence, Section 2, as provided at the end, that thereafter — that is to re- duce the board to fifteen and that there- after they should consist of fifteen members. MR. POST: May I ask a question? MR. FISHER: Certainly. MR. POST: As at present appointed, there will be three appointed for one year and four for two years. Now, why not leave out the three and appoint the four for four years to succeed the first seven that go out, and the next four for four years, instead of first appoint- February 25 1058 1907 ing them for a year, and then four for a year, and then four for two years? MR. FISHER: You want to get your board reduced to fifteen as soon as you can. You do not want to reduce it to twelve and then again raise it to fifteen. The idea is to reduce it to fifteen as quickly as it possibly can be done. That is what would be ac- complished by this draft* in here. MR. POST: I meant five instead of four. MR. FISHER: Do you mean, appoint after that? MR. POST: Yes, to appoint after that, as the terms of these seven expire, when you appoint five for four years instead of appointing three for one, and four for two, and then six for two, and finally the four for four years. MR. FISHER: The term of office of these members is to expire at different times, and I do not think it can be ac- complished by any other plan. MR. POST: Mr. President, I cannot understand this. I do not think you un- derstand me, Mr. Fisher. MR. FISHER: Possibly not. MR. POST: In 1908 the terms of seven members will expire. Now, you are proposing to appoint in their place three for one year, and four for two years. Why not appoint five for four years? That will reduce your board to two, and the next year the same, and the next the same, and in 1910 you will have a board of fifteen for four years — all in. Whereas, under the present sys- tem, you have a board of twenty-one for one year, eighteen for another year and fifteen for another. THE CHAIRMAN: I see no reason why that suggestion MR. FISHER: This board is not to consist of three classes of five each; it is to consist of four, of four-year terms, as I understand it. It is to con- sist of four-year terms. The result of that is, you cannot divide fifteen into four. If you want to change it so as to have three-year terms, why, that is all right. This is a four-year term. MR. POST: Mr. Fisher is quite right about that, and that will be so if there are four-year terms. Now, I would like to ask why we should have four-year terms, when it requires such a fantastic arrangement to establish it. Is there anything especially about a four-year term in this connection? I know that is not a drafting committee problem, and I do not ask it of Mr. Fisher as a member of the drafting committee, but I ask it of the convention: Why is it? MR. FISHER: I cannot see anything sacred in the four-year term for the members of the board of education. I personally would be in favor of three- year terms, but I was not present when the article was adopted. MR. B-. A. ECKHART: The drafting committee offers the section to the Con- vention in that manner. If the Conven- tion desires to change that, it can be done. THE CHAIRMAN: Will someone amend to make it three years? MR. SHEPARD: I move the adop- tion of this as it stands. MR. YOUNG: I move that it shall be three years, and five each year. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion. All those in favor signify by saying aye; opposed, no. The mo- tion was carried. MR. MacMILLAN: I do not think that the Convention knew what we were voting on. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state it, then, and we will have another vote. MR. MacMILLAN: I want a roll call on it. THE CHAIRMAN: All right. MR. MacMILLAN: I do not think we ought to change this matter in such a precipitate way. THE CHAIRMAN: The drafting February 25 1059 1907 committee sat for hours trying to figure out mathematically how the board could be changed. It found no way it could be practically done, because of the four- year term. That matter is now before the Convention. If some member will show how this board can be gradually changed with a four-year term, I have no objection to it. MR. SHEPARD: The drafting com- mittee’s report seems to me to be right, and I think Mr. Post is satisfied as to the mathematics of it now. The only question is whether we shall change from four-year term. You will remember we debated the four-year term for the office of mayor. There is a good reason for it, and, as far as the matter of mathematics is concerned, that cuts no figure; but there are cogent reasons why a four- year term is better than a three-year term, and I respectfully suggest that we leave it just as it is now, with the arrangement as worked out. MR. POST: That is satisfactory to me, provided the drafting committee will make it perfectly clear that this is to be a board of twenty-one in 1908 and eighteen in 1909, and fifteen in 1910, and thereafter. MR. MacMILLAN: This part of the discussion does not touch the question which I raised, which was to the effect that we voted upon General Young’s mo- tion on a vive voce vote, without, I be- lieve, the Convention really understand- ing the proposition. I do not believe that two-thirds of the members under- stand the proposition. THE CHAIRMAN: The vote has been expunged. MR. MacMILLAN: I would suggest this: Why not change the number of the board of education to sixteen, and then you will have none of this difficulty in mathematics. Then you will have straight four-year terms for the four classes of the members of the board of education, and there would be no ques- tion whatever as to this extra three, or anything of the kind. That will meet all the objections to this proposition, and clear away any objection. MR. WHITE: I rise to a point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: What is your point of order? MR. WHITE: Did we not vote to change the term from four years to three? MR. MacMILLAN: No, sir. MR. WHITE: What were we voting on? MR. MacMILLAN: I don’t think there is an intelligent member who did know what we were voting on. THE CHAIRMAN: The vote was expunged because Mr. MacMillan de- clared that intelligent members did not know what we were voting on. MR. MacMILLAN: I move you that the number as provided in the first sentence in Section 2 be changed from “15” to “16.” MR. B. A. ECKHART: I trust Mr. MacMillan will not press that motion. An even number in any board, in my judgment, would not work well. You might, many times, have a tie in your vote. It is usual to have an uneven number to constitute a board of this kind, and for this reason I do not think it would work as satisfactorily. I think on reflection Mr. MacMillan will real- ize it. MR. ROSENTHAL: I now move, as a substitute for Mr. MacMillan’s mo- tion, that this matter be re-referred to the drafting committee, to draft this section according to the present lines. The only reason I make that motion is because the section as now drafted is, as Mr. Post stated, inconsistent with it- self. It provided for fifteen members, and then, in the next section, provides for more than fifteen members. MR. B. A. ECKHART: Will Mr. Ro- February 25 1060 1907 senthal permit me to say that that is a little inconsistency that can be easily corrected? MR. ROSENTHAL: Yes. MR. B. A. ECKHART: And, I think, it is the intention of the committee to correct it in that respect, so that it will work out. MR. ROSENTHAL: I think the sense is proper, but it is not properly expressed. THE CHAIRMAN: Will it be satis- factory to everybody if the sense is properly expressed? MR. POST : I think I can correct that, Mr. Chairman. If, instead of say- ing the board of education shall con- sist of fifteen members, we insert in there twenty-one members for the year ending July 7, 1908, and eighteen mem- bers for the year ending July 7, 1909, and fifteen members for the year ending July 7, 1910, and thereafter. I think that will cure it all. If these mathemat- ics are necessary, I yield to the higher mathematicians in that. MR. ROSENTHAL: I move that we draft it in accordance with that sug- gestion. MR. FISHER: It would be seventeen the first year. We will have to get the mathematics correct. MR. POST: There are twenty-one now. MR. FISHER: There are twenty-one now, yes, and if four go out, and three, there will be seventeen left. Now, part of the year there will be seventeen and part of the year there will be twenty- one. I do not think we can redraft that section in that way. MR. WHITE: I move you that the whole matter be referred to the mathe- matical department. MR. POST: I second the motion. MR. FISHER: I think Mr. Young’s motion is the correct motion. That mo- tion would simplify this whole propo- sition, to have five members in each class, and a three-year term. The in- tention has been expressed to bring it out of politics. Now, there is nothing in the fact that the mayor has a four- year term. As a matter of fact, when you give the power to the mayor to change the entire personnel every four years there *is no difference. I do not see why, if you appoint three classes of five each, one class every year, in that way you will simplify the whole situation. I see no reason why that suggestion does not simplify the whole thing. THE CHAIRMAN: That is the way it appeared to the Chairman when he was overruled. You offer that in the form of a motion? MR. FISHER: Yes; the original mo- tion is before the house. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is pending. MR. PEND AR VIS: I want to ask Mr. Fisher a question. MR. FISHER: Yes. MR. PENDARVIS: When this mat- ter was under discussion, a suggestion was made if you had a three-year term of mayor under certain conditions, and have the appointment of ten of these MR. FISHER: He will appoint just as many members exactly. The next man who comes along will appoint the same. He will reappoint the men that are on there. It does not make a par- ticle of difference. I do not see that it makes a particle of difference. There was a question addressed to me as to whether I remember. I do not remem- ber, because I was not here; but this is much simpler. One year you are ap- pointing four, and one year you are ap- pointing three, and you get into compu- tations. I do not see any reason why there should be any objection to this. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question on General Young ’s mo- tion to amend by making the term three February 25 1061 1907 years instead of four years, five to be appointed each time? Are you ready for the question? All those in favor signify by saying aye; opposed, no. The motion is carried. ME. POST: On No. 3; let me call this matter to the attention of the house, before we pass No. 3, Mr. Presi- dent. My impression is that no action was taken on the elections of the school board. The people of this city have voted for an elective school board, and before we pass from the section I wish that the selection of the school board be changed from appointive to elective. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair de- sires to say that that question was thor- oughly threshed out, and was voted on in the convention, as to whether it should be an elective or an appointive school board, and the records will so show it. MR. POST: Well, I would like to ask for a vote on it. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Post moved that the board be an elective instead of an appointive board, and requests a roll call. MR. POST: No. THE CHAIRMAN: As many as fa- vor will signify by saying aye; op- posed, no. The motion is lost. MR. POST: I want to be recorded aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody who voted aye can record his name with the Secretary, and it will be so recorded of record. MR. POST: I wish to be recorded as voting aye. MR. ROBINS: I wish to be recorded as voting aye. MR. O’DONNELL: My vote was aye. MR. GREENACRE: I desire to be recorded as voting aye. MR. VOPICKA: I voted aye. MR. LINEHAN: My vote was aye. MR. TAYLOR: I now offer a substi- tute for the section reading “ Members of the board of education shall serve without compensation,” the following section: “The members of the board of education shall be paid such compen- sation as the city council may by ordi- nance provide.” I move that the reso- lution be not concurred in. THE CHAIRMAN: You move that the motion stand as it is? MR. TAYLOR: Yes. MR. SHANAHAN: Second. THE CHAIRMAN: There is no use in bringing it up, then. MR. LINEHAN: I want to bring up that amendment as offered by Mr. Werno and just read by Mr. Taylor, and I would like to say a word in favor of it, but I would like to know in what shape the motion will go before the house. THE CHAIRMAN: There was no amendment before the house, and Dr. Taylor moves that matters stand as they were. Consequently there is no motion before the house. MR. LINEHAN: Then I have the right of way? THE CHAIRMAN: And Mr. Linehan with his ' amendment has the right of way. MR. LINEHAN: I move the substi- tution of the amendment by Mr. Werno; that is on page 1033, the right and THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Linehan ’s motion, on page 1033, in the upper right- hand corner — Mr. Linehan moves that the board of education shall be paid such compensation as the city council may by ordinance provide. Is that your amendment? MR. LINEHAN : That is my substi- tute. THE CHAIRMAN: For No. 3? MR. LINEHAN: For No. 3; and I would like to say a word on that. I would like to call attention to the fact that under the present arrangement it practically disfranchises a man that is February 25 1062 1907 poor and honest; most everybody else is eligible to go on that board. The member that is poor and honest cannot go on that board; the man that is poor and willing to be dishonest might have a chance. Now, let me also call your attention to this fact, that at the present time, if a wage earner would come on that board he must vote by the organization that he may be connected with. Now, I do not think that is fair. I think the man who works for wages ought to be just as eligible on the school board as the officer of the organi- zation that he is paid by, and the only way that that can be brought about is by the city paying all those people, and not any special interest paying any of them. For instance, suppose a man is on that school board, and he is a member of the carpenters’ organization, and he is being paid as the officers of the car- penters ’ organization, the tendency is that he will look more after the inter- ests of the carpenters ’ organization than he will after the interests of the children of the whole city. Now, the same is true of any interest that may be represented there. If a young man is working for a business house here and is paid for the time that he is on the board of education, paid by the business house, the tendency then will be that he will work for the business house, no matter how honest he may be. It will be the natural tendency. Therefore, I think there is no way by which the matter may be put right before the people, except to leave it in the hands of the common council to pay the members of the school board what they desire. It may not be necessary to pay them all, but it may be neces- sary to pay some of them, or it might even be necessary to pay them all. However, I am willing to leave it to the judgment of the common council, and I think it is proper to have it. MR. FISHER: I wish to record my adherence to the general proposition which Mr. Linehan has laid down. I do not believe in public service of anybody without compensation. I think that any public officer, and I do not care whether it is the park commis- sioner or the school board member, or a member of the library board, or what- ever position, ought to carry with it a sufficient compensation so that a man who is absolutely dependent on his own earnings for a livelihood can afford to take the job if he is otherwise qualified for it. I believe there should be a limit to the amount of compensation paid, and I think the compensation for positions of this sort should be made high enough so that such a man could afford to take the position without jeopardizing his financial interests. I should think that $2,400 a year, or even the compensation that has been paid heretofore to the aldermen, or even as low as $1,200 a year, would take care of the matter, so as to get that point; but I do believe it is proper that compensation should be paid for all these officers to enable a man to take it who is absolutely dependent on his daily labors for the support of his fam- ily* I should like to see some limit put to this resolution, and then I would be in favor of it. MR. LATHROP: Doesn’t this apply with equal force to park commissioners? MR. FISHER: I think it does. MR. LATHROP: Experience in the past has shown that the men who have been most valuable on the park boards are men who would not have accepted those positions if there had been a sal- ary attached to them. We cannot put such a salary on those positions which will secure the services of men of large February 25 1063 1907 positions, and men of influence, men such as you want, and I think they will believe you are belittling the position of a member of the board of education or a member of the park board to attach to either of these places a small sal- ary. It would certainly debar many men now on the park boards from going on them. MR. ROBINS: I hope the resolu- tion of Mr. Linehan will prevail; that is, in such proper form as to limitation of salary that will meet the judgment of this Charter Convention as to what is right. When I went with the board of education I thought I had a different judgment about it, very much the atti- tude suggested by the last speaker. Now, my position on the board has shown me that it is an unwise policy; and that it is unwise in the interests of the whole people. I wish to submit to this Charter Con- vention the actual expense of being a member of the board of education; the actual amount of money that a member will pay out, which is something like a thousand dollars. A member cannot carry on the necessary engagements with- out suffering that much actual pecuniary cost. Now, further than that, the policy of not paying them gives a member of the board a sort of feeling that he should be excused from attending meetings that interfere with his business enterprises. Time and time again important mat- ters have failed of being considered, and the member who was responsible for the failure gave the excuse, “Well, of course, I have to make a living.” Now, no board should be in that position if you expect to get service from it. I wish to say to you gentlemen of this Con- vention that in the last year we all have been instructed as to the cost of public and private enterprises by the failure of the directors to direct, leaving it to them to use all responsibility. It does not mat- ter how deep a man ’s interest may be. As a matter of fact, all the brains were never yet under one hat and you cannot get all the brains under one hat, and all that you can do will not save the responsibility, by trying to get all the interest and responsibility in this one man. You want fifteen directors of your school and you want them to give their time to school matters and to the proper administration of the schools, and if they do not administer them properly, then you should put in men who will do so. But do not let them be excused on the ground “I could not attend that meet- ing”, or “I could not attend that meet- ing on account of business interests ’ ’ — and things of that kind. There are people in this community who are not able to uold honorary po- sitions. There are men who have ideas on the subject of education who are entitled to be heard. It is a matter of the edu- cation for the whole people and not a portion of the people; and it ought to be entirely possible for a man who is a member of his union or represents the labor interests in this city to be a mem- ber of the board of education without feeling that it was a charge upon him, without feeling that for him to accept it was a sort of warning to the public that he went in to get some profit or gain of some kind. I have heard gentlemen spoken of many times as members of the board of edu- cation ; until I was appointed, I was never spoken of as a member. My ap- pointment was a surprise to myself, and others, possibly. Now, certain gentlemen have refused the appointment on the ground that it was not possible for them to accept. I cannot help but think that it might have been better, that they would have made better directors than myself ; they certainly could not have been censured more than 1 have been. I feel that this is really an important mat- ter, and certainly the charter of ths February 25 1064 1907 City of Chicago should not preclude com- pensation for the service. MR. B. A. ECKHART: I trust the motion will not prevail. I believe there should be a few appointive offices, at least, that should be considered honorary positions, and that may be filled because of the fitness of the respective men to do the work of that particular office. So far as the statement made by the gentleman who has just spoken, it seems to me that there will always be found men competent to discharge their official duties without pay or compensation in matters of this kind. I have been a member of a board for ten or eleven years, without compensation, and there were some men on that board who rarely ever were at a meeting — a committee meeting — that for six or seven months at a time performed no work whatever. I have also served on a board where no compensation or pay was given to the members of the board, and I must confess that each member attended the committee meetings of the board very regularly, and performed their duties ef- ficiently. It seems to me that honorary positions are easily filled by men who are willing to do something for their fellow-men without compensation. I hope that the members of the park board and the other officers mentioned will not be paid a compensation. I believe that the mayor of the city can find men who have special adaptation for that work, and who will do it. I have yet to learn of a man who has refused to serve in any position of that kind because no compensation attached to the office which he occupied. MR. ROBINS: You have heard it to- day. I made the statement of two gen- tlemen who had refused to go on the board of education who w r ere poor men. MR. B. A. ECKHART : I didn ’t hear you make that statement. I have not heard of any man refusing to accept an honorary appointment where it involved a special honor to fill the office and refuse it because there was no salary attached to it. There may be an ex- ception to that rule. MR. LINEHAN: I would like to ask a question: Would it be possible for me to take an appointment on the school board without stamping myself before the people with the idea that I must get my money somewhere else. MR. HILL: I had firmly made up my mind that I would not get on my feet again during this convention, but this is a matter in which I have quite a pronounced view which I would like to get the sense of this meeting upon. It seems to me that there is a clean-cut distinction between the park board and the board of education. I think it is w r ell understood by everybody that per- haps our teachers, as a rule, are about the poorest paid class throughout the United States that we have at the present time. Now, the park board is a board of organization along business lines; but the board of education is something more. We must also have men on that board w r ho have a technical knowledge of the details of education — up-to-date knowledge upon that subject. Now, it does not seem to me that that class of men should be put in such position that they are barred from serving without great personal sacrifice. I do not think the salary should be high, but I think that the actual outlay is somewhere in the neighborhood of a thousand dollars in the course of the service. And I think, myself, that we ought to leave this open, so that the council could settle the matter. I appreciate all that has been said by those men who have served so success- fully upon the park board, but it seems to me that there is a distinction between the duty of the board of education and the duties of the members of the park board. One is business and the other is technical knowledge and business, and the men that have that technical knowl- edge are n^t highly paid men, and it is February 25 1065 1907 a sacrifice to some of them to keep up their interest and sacrifice their money to serve this great city of two million people, which is willing to pay a salary of a thousand or two thousand a year without any trouble. MR. McGOORTY : I would like to offer the following amendment. THE CHAIRMAN : Proceed. THE SECRETARY; “By Mr. Mc- Goorty: Amend article 19 by striking out paragraph 19-3, and insert in lieu thereof the following : ‘ The members of the board of education shall be paid such compensation as the city council may by ordinance provide, not to exceed $2,000.00 a year.’ ” THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? MR. YOUNG: It seems to me when we are putting a salary on the school board in the nature of a compensation, we are taking a most dangerous step. We must taxe into consideration human nature. I have never knowm a salaried office that did not become a political of- fice. After all the talk we have heard about keeping politics out of the school board, you are going to plunge it abso- lutely into politics ; you can ’t help it. The experience of the past has shown that we can get competent members of this school board without compensation. It is not absolutely necessary that cer- tain men shall be on the school board. Of that class of men there are always men who are willing to serve on the school board without compensation, and I hope sincerely that no such resolution as this shall prevail. I believe that there are enough men, poor and rich, who will take patriotic interest in this matter sufficient to serve on this board, and I believe there will be no difficulty in finding them. MR. RAYMER : I am thoroughly in favor of the resolution as presented by Mr. McGoorty. I think that the provis- ion of the limitation of the salary is a wise one. Now, the question of placing the school board in politics: it is my impression that the school board is about as far in polities today as you could get it; and I don’t believe that the placing of the salary for this provision is going to get it any deeper into politics, or take it any further out of the game than it is at present. I believe that the res- olution should be adopted. MR. TAYLOR: I hope the resolution will not pass. I do think that if the school board should be paid, the people should put into nomination the men who are to receive their salary, and not make it a question of plums to be sought by mediocre men at the hands of the ap- pointing officer. MR. POST : I think we should thor- oughly realize just exactly that the issue before us now is a public school ques- tion. The issue is this: Shall we have school boards composed exclusively, aside from politicians, of the wealthy class, who can afford to devote their time to school board purposes? Shall we ex- clude from the government of the school — from the board that governs the school — the men who come from the class that supplies the schools with their pupils? As has been said on this floor, a work- ing man cannot afford to go on this board. As has been indicated on this floor, an educator, no matter how able he may be, unless he happens to have an independent income, cannot afford to go on this board, unless he makes him- self the educational tool of the rich class in this community. Now 7 , Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of hesita- tion in voting for this, because I happen to be on the board, but I think I can make the matter wholly impersonal; I agree with Mr. Robins that if we are to have good school boards we have got to have them composed of men from all classes of the community who are competent and interested in the subject of education. The present school board, we are told, is full of politics. I wish February 25 1066 1907 to tell you that the existing school board is the first non-partisan board that has ever sat in this city; and when I say non-partisan, I mean what I say. You gentlemen often mix up non-partisan with by -partisan. You put so many republi- cans and so many democrats on a board, and you call it non-partisan. That is a by-partisan board, and they are generally the most corrupt boards. They simply offer opportunities for the two parties to swap back and forth. We have got a board now, the majority of which I defy you to tell the politics of any one of them. We have got a board today, I defy you to tell how they vote, because they are men and women who are de- voted to the schools and neither the pol- itics of the city nor the business in- terests of the city. You have had men sitting on that board who are business men, who could afford to sit on the board. We did no.t pay any compensa- tion — who could afford to take the places of the men that Mr. Linehan refers to. I can recall to your memory of mid- night sessions of that board when pub- lic property was voted away to the value of millions of dollars, affecting the in- terests of children yet unborn, and we, gentlemen, are hoping to get back a lot of that plunder that the business men, who could afford to sit on boards, were paid to take away from the school children of the City of Chicago. Mr. Fisher was perfectly right — that any man who performed a public function should be paid for it; and don’t imagine that the non-paying places are free from graft. If I were disposed to go on a grafting expedition, I have seen enough of the school board and the school busi- ness, and come sufficiently in contact with the business interests of this city, to know that I would not need any salary on the school board, and that I would be much more respectable in the public press besides. I could go grafting, and go grafting to the greatest advantage, and when my name did appear in the headlines of your especially respected newspapers, it would appear in such way as to make you who do not know me respect me. Mr. Chairman, there is but one ques- tion about this, and that is whether we shall have the schools managed by men who are humanely selected for their abil- ity to do that work and for their char- acter, or whether we shall turn the whole school system over to the class of men who hold their school board meetings in the back rooms of the Union League Club instead of in the committee rooms of the board of education. There is a meeting once in two weeks, commencing at 7 o’clock, and that lasts anywhere from 10 o ’clock to 4 o ’clock in the morning. A working man might at- tend to that and only lose a day, but through the week there is the school management committee. There are many details that must be attended to, and no man can afford to do that work for a very long time unless he has a salary. Business men can afford it without a salary, and sometimes a politician can afford it, but no man who has general interest in the subject of education can afford it very long without a salary, and we ought to make the office one that would be open for all. MR. VOPICKA; I am very much in- terested in this subject of the school board being paid. If this Charter Con- vention should decide that a certain sal- ary should be attached to the office of trustee, then I think we should have rules and regulations drawn, and that the duties should be prescribed which the members of the board have to fulfill. I do not believe that it is sufficient for a member simply to attend a meeting occa- sionally and get paid for that — get money for that ; he should visit the schools, and do more than attend the meetings; and I hope before an affirm- ative vote is taken on this question that we may have rules and regulations drawn showing what the duties of the February 25 1067 1J07 members of the board will be, and what may be expected of them for the salary that is attached to the office. MR. COLE: As an old member of the Union League Club, and as one who believes in giving every one a fair chance, I wish to state it as my opinion that the meetings should be held in public places and not in the back room of the Union League Club, or any other club. I favor Mr. McGoorty ’s motion. MR. ROSENTHAL: I don’t believe we are committing ourselves on any mat- ter here at all, but are simply leaving this matter to the city council. If the city council should decide, that certainly is a fair body and it is able to decide — if it should decide that the members of the board of education should not receive any compensation, it can be left in the form as at present, left in the present form. I think the words 1 1 if any ’ ’ should be attached to the reso- lution, to the amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: Will the Secre- tary call the roll upon Mr. McGoorty ’s motion ? MR. WHITE : Is this mandatory up- on the council, or permissive? THE CHAIRMAN: It is permissive; the city council may do it. MR. WHITE: I think, Mr. Chairman, you have placed the school board suffi- ciently at the mercy of the Chicago city council by your financial enactments here, and to tie them up by a possible salary that is to be voted, that is per- missible, by the city council, is to give the city council one more clutch at the throat of the ones that are very anxious to get a salary. I would either make it mandatory or not have it at all. I am opposed to it as a permissive proposition. They may give the school board if they feel like it. THE CHAIRMAN : The Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Badenoch, Beebe, Bennett, Brown, Burke, Cole, Dever, Dixon, G. W., Fisher, Greenacre, Guerin, Hill, Hoyne, Hunter, Linehan, McGoorty, McKinley, Michaelis, Owens, Post, Raymer, Robins, Rosenthal, Shepard, Snow, Yopicka, Wil- kins, Zimmer — 28. Nays— Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Lathrop, MacMillan, O ’Don- nell, Paullin, Pendarvis, Taylor, White, Young — 11. MR. HOYNE : I move we now ad- journ to 2 o’clock. THE CHAIRMAN : Upon Mr. Mc- Goorty ’s motion the yeas are 28 and the nays 11. Carried. The motion now be- fore the house is Mr. Hoyne ’s motion to adjourn. The Chair would like to make it 2:30, because Mr. Rosenthal is very anxious to be here. MR. ROBINS: A good many of us were thinking there would not be a meeting this afternoon, owing to the re- publican primaries; some of us have made arrangements different on account of that. It would be pretty hard for us to change our arrangements. THE CHAIRMAN : If the republi- cans can do it Mr. Robins ought to be able to do- it. MR. ROBINS: It will be hard to get a quorum. THE CHAIRMAN : The house can decide when it wants to meet. It is manifestly impossible to complete this charter unless we continue to work upon it. The members of the general assem- bly go back tonight. Now, if we come back here this afternoon, we can probably complete our labors so that it can go down to the general assembly. MR. POST: Before we adjourn — THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor — MR. POST : Before you adjourn, Mr. Chairman— I was here at 10 o’clock this morning and waited until 11 to begin business; it is proposed to adjourn to half-past two. Now, I have made ar- rangements for tonight, which I want to keep. If we are coming back, let us adjourn for a reasonable time for lunch, February 25 1068 1907 and come back here at half-past one — that we adjourn to half-past one. ME. FISHEB : Make it 2 o ’clock. THE CHAIEMAN: Gentlemen, what is your understanding of the time? ME. FISHEE; I move you that the Secretary be instructed to call the roll to ascertain how many members of this Convention will sit this afternoon and this evening, if necessary? THE CHAIEMAN: The motion be- fore the house is the motion to ad- journ. What time do you want to ad- journ to? (Cries of 11 2 o’clock” and “two- thirty”.) THE CHAIEMAN : As many as fa- vor adjourning to 2 o ’clock signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. The Convention stands adjourned to 2:30 o’clock this afternoon. Will the members be here promptly at that time? AFTERNOON SESSION 2:30 O’CLOCK P. M. THE CHAIEMAN: The convention will come to order pursuant to recess. Proceed w T ith the consideration of article 19., on pages 131, No. 4. Present — Foreman, Chairman, and Badenoch, Beebe, Bennett, Brosseau, Burke, Cole, Dever, Dixon, G. W., Eck- hart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Fisher, Greenacre, Guerin, Harrison, Hoyne, Hunter, Lathrop, Linehan, Mac- Millan, McGoorty, McKinley, Merriam, Michaelis, Owens, Paullin, Pendarvis, Post, Eaymer, Einaker, Eobins, Bosen- thal, Shanahan, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Taylor, Thompson, Yopicka, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 43. Absent — Baker, Beilf uuss, Brown, Carey, Church, Clettenberg, Crilly, Dixon, T. J., Erickson, Gansbergen, Graham, Haas, Hill, Jones, Kittleman, Lundberg, McCormick, O ’Donnell, Oehne, Powers, Eainey, Bevell, Bitter, Sethness, Shedd, Sunny, Swift, Walker, Werno, White, Wilkins— 31. ME. POST: I would like to ask if there is any special reason why that a'ge should be made 30 instead of, say, 25? Is there any necessity for outlawing for appointment on the school board a man who is competent to be a member of congress in the lower house? On that point I observe that one of the present members of the school board, whom I think everybody will concede is one of the best members of it, one of the most efficient and honest of all men, would not be competent for appointment under this provision. I move that that be changed to 25 years. THE CHAIEMAN": Are there any ob- jections to this change? ME. SHEPAED: What change is that? THE SECBETABY : 131. THE CHAIEMAN: Mr Post moves to change the age of eligibility to 25 years instead of 30. ME. TAYLOB; This was carefully considered in the meeting of the educa- tion committee and we thought 30 years was a fair limit for the maturity re- quired on the school board. I am very sure the education committee would not favor this change. Thirty years is old enough. MB. POST: I think, Mr. Chairman, that the committee ot™- this Conven- tion to givq an intelligent reason and not come here in a dictatorial manner to tell us what they consider. I think we are entitled to a reason why a mem- ber who is old enough to be a member of the lower house should not be entitled to be a member of the school board of Chicago. ME. TAYLOE: We felt it was a question of maturity; that 30 years was old enough. February 25 1069 1907 THE CHAIRMAN : Do you make that in the form of a motion ? MR. POST : I move it be changed from 30 to 25. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Post moves that the age be changed from 30 to 25. Are you ready for the question? THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor signify by saying aye; opposed, no. It is carried. I want to let myself in. No. 5. THE SECRETARY: No. 5. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, on No. 5: I think this would be in- valid in the manner in which it is writ- ten here. We haven’t power under the act to do this. There is nothing special in the act which warrants it, and it seems to me it is unnecessary to declare for this radical change. I therefore move to eliminate: “But by accepting appoint- ment while holding any state or local office, shall be deemed to have vacated such office, and by accepting any such federal, state or local office while mem- bers of the board of education ’ ’, and so forth. THE CHAIRMAN: You move to strike that out? MR. ROSENTHAL: I move to strike that out. THE CHAIRMAN: You move to strike that out? MR. ROSENTHAL: I move to strike that out, yes. MR. MacMILLAN : Strikg what out? MR. ROSENTHAL: “But by accept- ing appointment while holding any state or local office shall be deemed to have vacated such office’’; now, that should be, “But by accepting appointment while holding any state or local office’’ — 1 should say, ‘ 1 by accepting any such fed- eral, state or local office while a member of the board of education, or by not re- signing any federal office held at the time of being appointed to the board of education within thirty days after such appointment, shall be deemed to have vacated their membership in such board. ’ ’ MR. FISHER : Should not the words, “state or local office’’ be in under the resignation as well? MR. ROSENTHAL: Yes, I think the whole section should be redrafted. MR. FISHER : I second the motion. THE CHAIRMAN; Do you make that in the form of a motion, Mr. Rosenthal? MR. ROSENTHAL: I do. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal moves to strike out the words 1 1 But by accepting appointment while holding any state or local office, shall be deemed to have vacated such office ’ ’. MR. YOUNG: It seems to me that what we are trying to get at is that a man should not be eligible to a position on the board of education if he is hold- ing some other office. Now, we cannot make a charter provision to vacate the other office, but we can make a charter provision that wdll force him to vacate the board. I think that is a mere ques- tion of drafting it properly. I there- fore suggest, with your permission, that it be referred back to the drafting com- mittee to carry out that idea. THE CHAIRMAN: It is provided “By accepting any such office”, and so forth, “it is provided that such ap- pointment shall have the effect of vacat- ing the membership on the board.” MR. YOUNG: Before that you might assume that he vacated his other office, the federal or the state office. THE CHAIRMAN : Your motion, then, is that it should be drafted in conformity with the motion of Mr. Ros- enthal? MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor of the motion signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. It is carried. MR. ROSENTHAL: After the word “state”, I think it would be better to include the word “county”; 1 think it would be better to include the word ‘ 1 county ’ ’. February 25 1070 1907 THE CHAIRMAN; If there is no objection, the word “ county’ ’ will be in- serted. Six. THE SECRETARY: 6, 7, page 132; 89. MR. ROBINS: Provision 9 brings up a question that, it seems to me, we should consider very carefully in relation to some other provisions of this portion of the charter, that is, the control of the board of education by a one-third vote. It is a matter of common knowledge, of course, to any one familiar with the op- eration of such a rule, that it does not provide for a two-thirds control; it pro- vides for one-third control. It provides that one-third can block or hold any ac- tions whatever. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, in this section and the other sections, the pro- vision should be changed so as to em- power the election of its president by a majority vote, and all of its officers by a majority vote; that is fundamentally necessary for intelligent and effective ac- tion. Any other rule gives to one-third of the body practical control of that body, as long as they can be held to- gether, and the entire control by one- third is contrary to good policy. This has been demonstrated in public bodies of any character as far as I know, that are engaged in the administration of public affairs. I move you, Mr. Chair- man, that the words ‘ 1 two-thirds ’ ’ be stricken out and the word 1 1 majority ’ ’ be inserted, — or “ a majority of all the members ’ ’, in place of the words ‘ 1 two- thirds of all the members ’ ’, in section 9 of this provision. MR. TAYLOR : Mr. Chairman, I might inform the house that the report as it came from the committee, and as far as I know was in accordance with Mr. Robins’ statement, as far as the ap- pointment was concerned. The original draft of the report was for an appoint- ment by the majority, but for a re- moval by a two-thirds vote. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion of Mr. Robins that the two-thirds be changed to a majority wherever it appears. MR. YOUNG: That is not the mo- tion. MR. TAYLOR: I object to that. THE CHAIRMAN: In the first par- agraph, you mean? MR. ROBINS: Yes, sir, in the first paragraph, section No. 9. THE CHAIRMAN: Simply the first paragraph of section 9. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor will signify by saying aye; opposed, no. The motion is carried. MR. ROSENTHAL: Now, as to the office of superintendent and business manager, who shall be appointed for a term of not less than four years; I no- tice here that no limit is mentioned. I would like to ask Mr. Taylor whether you have placed any limit on that? Un- der that section a man might be appoint- ed for twenty years. MR. TAYLOR: The intention was four years. He can be dismissed after this, but engaged for not less than four years. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, I now move you that after the words “four years” be inserted “not more than six years ’ ’. MR. TAYLOR: Where is that? MR. ROSENTHAL: That is on the fourth line of the second paragraph of section 9. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman: It was originally, and according to the vote that was passed at this convention, it was the intention of the committee to make the term of office be four years — to make it correspond practically with the general outlines of the w T ork in the other depart- ments. Now, it seems to me it would be better to say four years and not make it more or less, but to make it four years. MR. ROSENTHAL: That is the point. February 25 1071 1907 MR. MERRIAM: The suggestion was this: There was some argument in favor of the indeterminate tenure, but I think the term was fixed at four years, and I think some of us talked in favor of not fixing the term that will be making it indefinite, and as a compro- mise they put in this: Not less than four years. It does not appeal to me at all. The term ought not to be lim- ited at all. It should be a limited term of not less than four years, — that is, a minimum of four years, and above that as long as they wanted to make it. MR. SHEPARD: I respectfully sug- gest that the words be stricken out en- tirely. That means that the board of education may employ a man for a term and you have protected him in his em- ployment, as far as his removal is con- cerned. I now move as a substitute, the words I I not less than four years ’ 1 be stricken out. MR. RAYMER : One of the incentives that was used to get the right sort of man for this position w r as that he should have a fair term of .office, that was the argument used on the floor of this con- vention. Now, I don ’t think it would be good judgment to strike that out at this time. The chances are that the board of ed- ucation would not engage a man unless they were satisfied he was the right sort of a man for the position, and if he was the right sort of man for the posi- tion, they were able to make it perma- nent, extending for a period of years. I think that the provision as it is at present is correct. I believe it should remain as it is. MR. POST : Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that is the proper motion, if you are to have a limited term on those mat- ters, so that it shall not be left to the board that a man shall be removed at any time, and in view of the fact that there is all this edging into the board so as to keep in office some man an- other board might not want to keep in, that the proper motion, it seems to me, is to strike out ‘ ‘ less * and put in ‘ 1 more 1 \ So that no board shall have power of foisting upon a subsequent board a superintendent who may be ob- jectionable to the subsequent board. If a man has been in four years, and is really worthy, there will be no objection to having him remain, but there is so much edging in this w'ay, so that a term may be upheld for twenty or thirty years, and that is objectionable, because under that arrangement a board could not re- move an officer unless it proved charges against him. I move to strike out ‘ 1 less , ’ and insert the word 1 ‘ more ’ \ MR. MacMILLAN : I beg leave to suggest, and call attention to the first two lines, in the second paragraph, which, I think, cover the amendment. The wording reads as follows : ‘ 1 The board shall, subject to the provisions of this charter, prescribe the duties, com- pensation and terms of office of all offi- cers. ’ * And that then, striking out the entire phrase and making it appear right after that, 1 1 And the salary of no offi- cer shalKbe lowered during his term of office ’ ’, and as a substitute for the en- tire set of amendments, I move to strike out the two lines, four and five, up to the word “and M , in the fifth line, strik- ing out 1 1 But the term of office of the superintendent of education and of the business manager shall not be less than four years ’ \ Because, obviously, we have just set forth that the board shall determine the term of office of all the officers; and it is not, if I may be per- mitted to suggest to Dr. Taylor, it is not good phrasing. You have set forth that the board shall determine the term of office, and then go on and state what the term shall be. MR. VOPICKA: Only in two cases. MR. MacMILLAN: What is the ne- cessity of it? MR. VOPICKA; I wish to explain that the necessity is this: if a man is February 25 1072 1907 elected for four years he knows he will stay four years, and he will be a better man. But if there is no time stated, it will be hard to get a good man. MR. MacMILLAN : As Professor Merriam said at the time this matter was under discussion before, every educa- tor selected by any board of trustees of any university or college, when he takes his place and assumes his duties — the duties of his 'office — it is certainly under some general provision for his re- maining. MR. VOPICKA: But this is- some- what of a political office, and in that sense it is different. MR. MacMILLAN : We are trying to take it out of politics; perhaps w 7 e can- not, though ; I thought w T e were trying to. MR. YOUNG: It seems to me the discussion has proven one thing here, and that is that the drafting committee got more nearly to the general sentiment of this thing than we are doing here now. I therefore move as a substitute — THE CHAIRMAN: There are four substitutes here now. MR. YOUNG: I thought the original motion was there. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will try to find where the motions are. MR. POST : I would like to ask Mr. MacMillan if this amendment would not empower the board to make a life con- tract, and if it did empower them so, w'hether it could be abrogated in any other way than upon a trial and re- moval for cause? MR. MacMILLAN : In answ r er to that I would say, wouldn ’t it, anywrny, raise the same question, if this first clause is retained as it is, wouldn ’t it be the same? MR. POST: No, I think not. MR. MacMILLAN: Yes, I think it would, Mr. Post. MR. POST : It should not be less than four years. If they retain the amendment — the amendment provides in that clause that the board may make a contract with any one of its officers for forty years, if it wants to. MR. HUNTER: No, not more than four years. The word “more” instead of ‘ ‘ less ’ ’. MR. MacMILLAN : In that case, could the superintendent be re-employed at the end of four years? MR. VOPICKA: Certainly he could. MR. MacMILLAN: That is what we want to find out. „MR. VOPICKA: The contract could not be good for longer than four years. MR. YOUNG: The term of the mayor is four years, and there is no trouble about his being re-elected if he gets enough votes. A man that is employed for four years by the board can be re- employed by them later, at the end of the four years. It seems to me that the whole thing is settled if we fix the term for four years, according to my original motion ; make it four years, make the term four years, and the whole thing is settled. You don ’t need to say ‘ ‘ less ’ ’, you don’t need to say “more”. MR. FISHER; Mr. Chairman— MR. COLE: I merely want to say a word, I don’t take as long as you do, Fisher, you know — MR. FISHER : That all depends. MR. COLE: I merely want to say that the whole thing is, when you brush aside all the “isms”, that it resolves itself into a clear-cut proposition as be- tween an indeterminate term and a four- year term. It seems to me we can get at this very quickly by voting on the indeterminate term proposition, and if that is voted down, we can take up the four-year term proposition. MR. FISHER: If you are going to change to four years, you should specify it, and if you want it different, you should also specify it. Air. Post has sug- gested that not to make it four years puts limitations on the board with re- gard to those two offices, and none with regard to all the rest. By construction February 25 1073 1907 of that, you can make a fifty-year con- tract with anybody else, but not with the superintendent or the business man- ager; you make particular provision for his term of office, but not for all the rest. Now, you can make a provision that might be of a very serious disad- vantage. I think the indeterminate plan is, of all kinds of plans, the best. . The superintendent of parks is an expert offi- cer, a man who is supposed to have some technical knowledge; he is employed by the present system, Mr. Lathrop tells me that the Lincoln Park board employ their superintendent for an indeterminate term; they don’t make any term contract with him. The whole framework of this educational section here, it seems to me, is swinging the pendulum of the clock around on the top of the clock. You are trying to get what some people call an evil in the existing system remedied by creating something which may give worse abuse than what you already have. If you fix the position of superintendent for a four-year term and do not fix the other offices for a definite term, then the matter of the superintendent’s office all the while is different from the rest, and that ought not to be desirable. It seems to me it spells inefficiency, and that the proper way to do is to create a board of education and allow the board of ed- ucation to run that feature of it; if you create a board of education, you should give it the power to run those things, and let a majority of the board run the school, and hold the majority responsible for running the school, and not create a body of that sort without giving them the power to run it in the proper way. It seems to me, in order to carry this out successfully, that a majority of the board should have the power of appoint- ment and removal at all times, and not hold them to any restrictions which will tend to reduce the efficiency of the board. MB. TAYLOR: We have heard some talk on the question of taking the school board out of politics, but the appoint- ment of a school superintendent, or a superintendent of education, is a quasi- political appointment. It has no parallel to the appointment of a board of direc- tors of a university or technical school. A man who is in the presidential office, in one of those privately managed insti- tutions, is not in fear of being dismissed at any meeting of a board by one vote against him. Those things do not trans- pire in those privately managed institu- tions, and the purpose of these restric- tions is simply to secure men of effi- ciency, of high efficiency, by giving them some assurance of permanency in their positions, of the permanency of things, and long enough, at least, to carry out the policy until it can be shown whether it is successful or not. It does not seem to me, under the prevailing situation in our own great city, that this pendulum — that this swings the pendulum on top of the clock at all ; it keeps the clock on top of the pendulum. It seems to me you would have better assurance of the efficiency of the man- agement of the tremendous business and educational enterprise of ours, by making either the business superintendent, or the superintendent of education, not subject to the whim of a single voter at any meeting of the board of education. It seems to me if these details were left in the hands of an efficient expert, that the reasons which we have had so eloquently placed before us this morn- ing for paying the board, would not ex- ist. These things can be better done, most of them, by one efficient man en- tirely under the control of the board, than by all the members of the. board working twenty-four hours a day. It seems to me we are right up against the proposition now between the question of efficiency and administration and the sen- timental democracy in the control of the school by a majority of the board of education. MR. ROSENTHAL: It strikes me that this particular section is really the most February 25 1074 1907 important section in this whole article, and if you leave the term of office en- tirely indeterminate, you would be mak- ing a great mistake. When this subject was up before this Convention before, there was a great deal of debate on it, which it is not necessary to review at the present time, and it was then de- cided that it would be a great mistake to leave the term absolutely indetermi- nate, for this particular reason, as the argument at that time tended to show that you cannot get the right sort of men to fill this office on those conditions, that it will always remain a quasi -political office, and that you cannot get the right sort of men to take the office unless you can secure him in the tenure to a certain extent. Now, that man knows that if he satis- fies he will have a majority of the board of education under ordinary circum- stances. Under ordinary circumstances you cannot get an educator of distinc- tion to take that position unless you secure him in that position, and under those circumstances we ought not to make that term less than four years. In order that the board of education, when it fills the place, will look around for the right sort of man, who will do the experimenting, who will attempt any- thing as a responsible educator, he must have a certain tenure of office under which he knows that, provided he is on good behavior, he can hold that office and control that office for a period of four years and carry on his policy; be- cause in less time than that the average educator cannot carry out his particular policy.' I do not think there is a para- graph in the whole program that is of more importance than this in regard to the elimination of this four-year tenure of office. ME. ROBINS: Mr. Chairman, there is no more important provision in this charter in regard to education under the control of the board of education than the one under consideration. The argu- ment that has been made by Mr. Fisher seems to me to cover this thing in the main. I submit to this Charter Conven- tion that all boards of directors — we are told to work a good deal on the lines of business administration — there is not a board of directors in this country that will engage a superintendent for four years that I know anything about. They engage them for a year, or for a time, but they can be dismissed by a majority at any time. He is not appointed for a long term of office, and why should you adopt any other method in regard to the board of education? Instead of it being a rule that we should have a definite term, the rule is altogether against a definite term. No president of any university is elected for a definite term. A man comes across the continent to take a position and know s that so long as the board of trustees wish him to hold the office he can hold, it, and no longer. The present board of education has secured the services of the present superintendent on precisely this term. Has it made him humble to the majority of the board of education? We would not think so. We believe that the super- intendent is absolutely independent; and we believe that any superintendent worth having there would be of that character. Gentlemen of the Convention, if you want to make the superintendent a poli- tician, if you want to make him the chief wire-puller, there is not a shrewder scheme calculated to do that than of making him and a third control the board of education. It is a poor superinten- dent who has a certain number of years who cannot get one-third of the board to back him up on almost any proposi- tion. There are sufficient favors to be disbursed, there are sufficient advantages to be used, and you are absolutely put- ting tremendous power in the hands of your educator of a political character rather than of an educational character by giving him a four-year term of office. Now, I don ’t know many heads of de- February 25 1075 1907 partments, but I know a few. I don’t know any head of a department any- where who is a professional man that would want to hold that position and just simply to hold it. Now, let me con- sider the situation. The board of education on all other matters than this particular matter of those two officers by a majority vote can control all the policies, and the uses of money, and all the arrangements of the board in any way are in the control of the majority? But these particular of- fices are not in the control of the ma- jority. Now, suppose that the majority of the board and the superintendent should be in opposition. The superintendent could to a degree circumvent the board; and the board could to an absolute degree circumvent the superintendent. There you have got the most absurd and fool- ish outlook imaginable. Let me say, gentlemen, admitting for the purpose of this discussion that the present board of education is a foolish board. Admitting that they have had the power of appointment, it will ap- point a bad superintendent. Could you get at the real character of that board better than to give it the power to exer- cise for the time, and then when it is through you have those bad actions to use and show the board has exercised and misused them, and then you will be able to put it out of existence. Now, there is a grade, in our munici- pal administration, we have a grade be- tween responsibility and power. You want to have responsibility and power in the board. Here is your board and a nominal responsibility is actually in the hands of a third of its members and the superintendent, for the most im- portant parts of its administration, so far as resources are concerned. It con- trols them, so far as the direction of its resources are controlled. Then they put in office a superintendent. Now, I am safe to claim that there is nowhere a greater fallacy, candidly, more calculated not to do the thing that I believe the members of the committee on education sought to do, and that was, to give a harmonious situation. Now, if you are going to have a board of education at all, you have got to trust your board of education. Yes, seriously, you have got to trust that board just as you trust your council; just as you trust your mayor; just as you must try to make his office so important and responsible that the people will see it is filled with a skilled and responsible individual, and see that the right men are in those positions. Then, if you get the wrong man in, you can fasten the responsibility for the wrong administration upon the individual or the individuals concerned. As I said before, there is no excuse in this administration because, with our great corporations and with our great universities, it is the other way. Now, in municipal administration of course the whole effort after municipal reform has been to put the reform in such a way, and logically so clear that the people would know who was respon- sible. Now, imagine a superintendent; he has got six votes. There are nine votes against him, or in our present situation he has got eleven votes and there are ten votes against him — seven votes — eight votes. Those eight votes control the board of education in all administrative affairs. The eleven votes control in all matters of administration, and the man- ner and means. Now what have you got? It is the most foolish and absurd situation possible. If the board of educa- tion is in opposition to the superintendent and declared opposition to him, rather than to certain different policies of his, then that superintendent should tender his resignation, and any able, capable man will do that at once. He does not want to be put in any such false position and he won’t stand for it. Now, suppose he has a contract; what February 25 1076 1907 then? He will stick to his position and keep that position from year to year, let it cost what it may to the educational interests of the city. Now, from the time that I have been on the board this seems to me to be an important thing, that you lodge responsibility and power, and that you hold those members of the board ab- solutely responsible for the administra- tion and put them where they cannot escape the just criticism of the people if they administrate badly. I want these salaries for these mem- bers of the board, because I don’t want them to have the opportunity to offer the excuse that they cannot take care of it when their business interests in- terfere. Now, I want this two-thirds vote stricken out for the same reason; be- cause I want a strong, able, responsible and powerful board of education, where you can look and know at once that those persons are responsible, and where you cannot hide behind the skirts of a third of the board and say “we want to do it but we cannot.” It is an absurd and foolish proposi- tion, it seems to me, with all due respect for the gentlemen -who have prepared it. They have sought to overcome a bad position, doubtless, in their minds, but they have overcome a bad condition in a way that will make that bad condition worse. Now, I hope that this Charter Conven- tion is going to give- the matter the thought that its importance deserves and demands, because I say to you, when you have got such a business manager and such a superintendent fixed for four years I do not believe that any good men would wish to be on that board. He would recognize his powerlessness. Now, gentlemen, I want to say to you that all wisdom is not lodged in any one place ; you cannot provide for proper administration by such devices as these; it is other devices that are necessary. Not by giving two men in the great sys- tem great power and putting them be- yond the reach of the majority of the people that are supposed to control the educational force of the city. ME. YOUNG: I have not very much to say, only it does occur to me that it is going quite a little bit too far for one member of this Convention to criti- cise in the manner in which this gentle- man has just done, a committee ap- pointed by this Convention. We may have been foolish and we may have been absurd, but that occurs to me rather as a matter generally of the Con- vention, perhaps, than of any individual in the Convention to call attention to. I realize that it is not possible to lodge all wisdom or all logic under one hat, and I desire this discussion along that line, assuming that is not the case. Now, it seems to me we are doing nothing at all new in putting in these two officers with a certain definite tenure of office. It is not the only instance in which we have officers with a certain definite tenure. I see no particular rea- son of lodging absolute power in the hands of members of the board of edu- cation. We do not lodge absolute power anywhere else, speaking of the city coun- cil; we do not place absolute power in the hands of the city council or we would not have a charter. All we would have to do would be to say we will have a city council that will have absolute power. Why should we give absolute power to this subordinate board? It seems to me it is only fair and just, and nothing foolish or absurd about it in saying that the two offices, such as the superintendent of the public schools and the business manager, should stand with- out some definite tenure of office for which they were to serve. On the other hand, taking the reverse side of the picture, the interjection by Mr. Post indicates what may be done in the other direction. You might em- ploy a man for life, if you please, and make his tenure of office ten years, fifteen February 25 1077 1907 years or twenty years and thereby cre- ate a contract with him that you would have to show good cause for violating. It seems to me if we get down to the question of making these offices that are technical and require such ability as we should have there, that they should be for a term of years. That would be the best way. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is to strike out the limitation on the term of the superintendent of education and the business manager, the term of office of the superintendent and business man- ager not to be less than four years. That is Mr. MacMillan’s motion, I think. MR. YOUNG: That is Mr. MacMil- lan’s motion as you have just read it. MR. YOPICKA: And Mr. Post’s mo- tion was a substitute — not less than four years. MR. ROBINS: Mr. MacMillan offered as a substitute, as a substitute, that the words after “the business manager” should be stricken out, down to the word “and.” THE CHAIRMAN: That is just as I have read it. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, that is now the motion before the house. THE CHAIRMAN: That is, Mr. Mac- Millan’s motion as a substitute for everything? - MR, ROSENTHAL: Yes, sir. THE CHAIRMAN : On that motion the Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Beebe, Beilfuss, Burke, Dever, Fisher, Greenacre, Guerin, Hoyne, Line- han, MacMillan, McKinley, Merriam, Owens, Rinaker, Robins, Shepard, Thompson, Zimmer — 18. Nays — Bennett, Brosseau, Cole, Dix- on, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eidman, Harrison, Hunter, Lathrop, Michaelis, Paullin, Pendarvis, Post, Ray- mer, Rosenthal, Snow, Taylor, Vopicka, Wilkins, Young — 21. (During roll call.) MR. BEEBE : I have not quite got onto what Mr. MacMillan’s motion w’as. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion was to strike out page 132 in the second par- agraph from section 9, the words, “but the term of office of the superintendent of education and of the business manager shall not be less than four years. ’ ’ MR. FISHER: I wish to explain my vote. As I understand the motion, as it is now pending, it will give the board the power to fix any term of office that it sees fit and that, without being sub- ject to removal. Therefore, I vote no. MR. POST: Mr. Chairman, I wish to explain my vote. Until I can get some advice as to the legal effect of this motion I cannot vote intelligently. Now, this would leave it to the board, as it seems on the face, to fix among other things the term of office of the superin- tendent and of the business manager. Now, if that means that the board can fix the contract for fifty years or for life, and that the appointee cannot be removed except by two-thirds vote of the board, and then only for cause, which could be brought before the courts — why, I vote No. If it means that the board may keep the control of these of- ficers at all times, I should vote Aye. Now, I would like to ask what would be the legal effect of an Aye vote on this? THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair can- not answ 7 er what the legal effect would be. The Chair has stated the question. The question is to strike these words out. MR. POST: There are lawyers here; perhaps some of them will inform us what the legal effect will be. MR. FISHER: As I understand the purpose of the mover of the motion, it wdll be MR. SHEPARD: I respectfully sug- gest that it is beyond the pow r er of any one human being in this convention to construe this matter for all of us. You will have to take your chances. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fisher lias the floor. MR. FISHER: 1 am not going February 25 1078 1907 to undertake to construe it for Mr. Shep- ard. This, as I understand the mover of the motion, is that the legal effect would be the same as reading it, subject to removal as hereinafter provided. That is, that the words “subject” and “pro- vision to this charter ’ ’ are intended to have that effect. If that is so it is one thing ; if it not so it is another thing. The language could be changed so there would be no question about it. MR. MacMILLAN : I submit the mat- ter with respect to removal comes in the succeeding section. If the Convention, by its vote in the succeeding section, shall provide that the business manager * or the superintendent can be removed by a two-thirds vote, then that matter stands, but I believe that matter is to be taken up on the next vote. THE CHAIRMAN: Precisely. MR. MacMILLAN : We take our chances on that. MR. POST: If you should adopt this amendment, and also adopt section 10 as it appears, the board would have the power to make a lifelong contract. I, therefore, vote No. THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed with the roll call. MR. ROBINS: I would like to know what the effect of this is? I want a term just as we usually have for the heads of departments, and if the effect of this vote is to allow a term as indi- cated by Mr. Fisher, then I want to vote No. If it is as intended by other gentlemen I want to vote Aye. There- fore I pass the vote. THE CHAIRMAN : Proceed. MR. SMULSKI: I feel that I am exactly in the same position as Mr. Robins on this question. If you will note this sentence, you will see it will give the board of education the right to appoint a man for 25, 30 or 50 years, if you like. If you leave this sentence in there it leaves them the same power with only this restriction, that they shall not make it for less than four years, while if they strike it out they may make it one year. I do not see where the benefit of this clause comes in. I think the section is wrong and should be changed, but not the way you are doing it now. I cannot vote intel- ligently on it. I am against it as it stands, and I would be against it as it would be amended. Therefore, I vote No. MR. FISHER : Before the vote is announced I desire to say, I do not want to get mixed up here on parliamentary proceeding. Of course I can see that we can, by taking the next section and amending that, make this thing different. I will change my vote to Aye on that understanding, that we are going to change the question on the next section. MR. POST; May I ask for an ex- planation? Has one been made? MR. HOYNE: I want to change my vote to Aye. MR. YOUNG: Roll call. THE CHAIRMAN: The roll call is being called. MR. ROBINS: How am I recorded? As passing? THE SECRETARY : Robins, not re- corded. MR. ROBINS: Aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the motion to strike out the Ayes are 18 and the Nays are 21. The motion is lost. MR. YOUNG: I believe my amend- ment will come next then, to make it four years; the term of office four years. THE CHAIRMAN : To fix the term of office four years? MR. YOUNG: To fix the term of office four years. THE CHAIRMAN: And it shall not be less than or more than four years. MR. POST: My motion, I think, pre- cedes that. THE CHAIRMAN: What? MR. POST: My motion, I think, pre- cedes that, in the order in which the motions were made. February 25 1079 1907 THE CHAIRMAN : This is the same, Mr. Post. MR. POST : No ; mine was to put more instead of less. MR. HUNTER: Not more. THE CHAIRMAN : Not more, but it ' may be less. The next is on Mr. Post’s motion, that the word ‘Mess” shall be changed to read ‘ 1 more. ’ ’ MR. HUNTER : Question. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? All those in favor will signify by saying Aye. Those' op- posed, No. The Secretary will call the roll. The Chair cannot decide. Yeas — Beebe, Beilfuss, Burke, Dever, Fisher, Greenacre, Guerin. Hunter, Line- han, MacMillan, McKinley, Owens, Pen- darvis, Post, Rinaker, Robins, Shepard, Smulski, Thompson, Yopicka, Zimmer. — 21 . Nays — Bennett, Brosseau, Cole, Dix- on, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Harrison, Hoyne, Lathrop, Merriam, Michaelis, Paullin, Raymer, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Snow, Taylor, Wil- kins, Young. — 20. (During roll call.) MR. FISHER; Is this to substitute the words ‘ ‘ not more ’ ’ for the words “not less”? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. FISHER : I vote Aye. THE CHAIRMAN: On Mr. Post’s motion to change the word 1 1 less ’ ’ to “more,” the yeas are 21, and the nays 20, and the motion is carried. MR. YOUNG: May I have a state- ment of what that motion is, Mr. Chairman ? THE CHAIRMAN: It strikes out the word “less” in the fourth line of the second paragraph, section 9, and puts in the word ‘ 1 more, ’ ’ so that it reads : “But the term of office of the superin- tendent of education and of the business manager shall not be more than four years. ’ ’ MR. RINAKER: Mr. Chairman, be- fore we leave this particular paragraph, I would like to offer as an amendment that, after the word ‘ ‘ officers ’ ’ in the second line of this same paragraph, I move you that we add this provision : ‘ ‘ Provided that the term of office of no such officer shall exceed four years. ’ ’ THE CHAIRMAN; Gentlemen, you have heard the amendment of Judge jRinaker that the term of office of all officers shall be limited to four years. MR. RINAKER; Not to exceed four years. THE SECRETARY: Not to exceed four. THE CHAIRMAN : Not to exceed four years. Are you ready for the question? MR. ROBINS : Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to suggest to some of our friends here who may not be wholly familiar with the method adopted in the adminis- tration that the board re-elects all its officers, the superintendent and the busi- ness manager, and the architect — except the architect, who is under civil service — all heads of departments every year. Then you have a homogeneous adminis- tration. You don’t w y ant to have a head of a department with officers under him who are administrative officers who hold their office for four years, that he cannot change ; you want a system as homo- geneous and harmonious as possible to make it a good administration. Any of- ficers who have had good character, those officers have been re-elected each year for the educational year, to run for a year only, and then the next year you re-elect them, and so on. That practice goes on i year by year, and that is, I think, the best way in which you can secure the best administration. MR. RINAKER: Mr. Chairman, this reserves that identical power to the board under this amendment. This is not a fixed term of office for four years, but not to exceed four years. MR. ROBINS: I am corrected. I thank you, Mr. Chairman ; I beg par- don. February 25 1080 1907 MR. MERRIAM: I would like to ask you what other officers are referred to? MR. RINAKER: Whom they may appoint ? MR. MERRIAM: Those officers are under the civil service, are they not? M. MacMILLAN : I would like to ask Professor Merriam if the attorney is under civil service? MR. MERRIAM: No. MR. MacMILLAN: Then you exclude the attorney? THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? (Cries of 1 ‘ Question. ”) THE CHAIRMAN: On Judge Rin- aker’s motion. All those in favor sig- nify by saying aye; opposed, no. Car- ried. Proceed. THE SECRETARY: 10-11. MR. POST: One moment, please. I move to strike out 1 1 attorney ’ ’ from 10. It seems to me to make the at- torney subject to THE CHAIRMAN: Shall not be sub- ject. MR. POST : four years. That he should be removable only for cause by a vote of not less than two-thirds. If you allow the superintendent and the business manager to have this advantage with the board, the attorney should not be so elected. I believe that every board should have full power to select its own attorney. MR. MERRIAM: Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Post will yield to me and renew his motion later, I would like to move to strike out 1 1 two-thirds, ’ ’ and substitute “a majority’ ’ for that, in line 5 of that section, 19-10. To strike out ‘ 1 two-thirds ’ ’ and substitute for that "a majority.” THE CHAIRMAN: There is one motion before the house : that is Mr. Post’s motion. MR. POST: I will suspend my mo- tion. THE CHAIRMAN: You withdraw your motion? MR. POST: Yes, until Mr. Merriam moves his. THE CHAIRMAN: Professor Mer- riam moves to change “two-thirds” to “a majority” in section 10. Are you ready for the question? MR. POST: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we are going right along on the same line, and that we are placing certain officers subject to the whim of members of the board where we have tried to protect the lowest and poorest clerk, as we should, in every other de- partment. Here are certain officers who are very important and with very con- siderable influence, for whom we are not requiring any special attention whatever. We are going to be able to remove those just as we please by a majority, if that motion should prevail. It does seem to me that when we have got a superinten- dent of schools he ought to be supported, and it does seem to me that he should require cause to be removed, and that cause should be strong enough and de- cisive enough and plain enough to re- quire support by two-thirds of the board to discharge him before he is discharged. It seems to me that the vote should be made strong enough to secure him in some stability. To strike out the two-thirds and leave him to the pleasure of the mere majority would be no protection. I think the cause should be sufficient and important enough to secure the co-operation of two-thirds of the members. MR. MERRIAM : It seems to me that as a practical proposition that we have a situation here that may give us a good deal of trouble; we have a board of education composed of fifteen mem- bers, and if eight of those members are responsible to the superintendent, it does not seem to me that he should have the power to hold himself in office by the support of the majority with whom he may have favor. Certainly a major- ity may so cripple him, hamper him, or embarass him by refusing to counsel February 25 1081 1907 with him or co-operate in his policies, and refuse to give him financial support, loan him their sympathy that they might give him, possibly that would enable a minority to hold the superintendent in power, but that is simply inviting ma- terial for very certain trouble. I don’t see why one-third should be enabled to rule a majority;. it is certainly very essential in a working body of this sort that it should be harmonious, and if you provide that a minority can hold up a school system against the will of the majority, it is absolute material for disagreement; I don’t see how you can avoid it. THE CHAIRMAN : Are you ready for the question? MR. ROSENTHAL: It seems to me we are drifting backwards here. We have now a provision in this charter by which the superintendent of education can be appointed for one year, or he can be appointed for half a year or for two months. In this case, he can be ap- pointed for a very short tenure of office, and whatever tenure of office you may give him he will be there for that time; he cannot be removed excepting for cause. If the cause is a good one, it will cer- tainly appeal to two-thirds of the mem- bers. It is not a question of holding the majority or minority in a report, but it is a question of holding the whole board of education responsible. The terms of the members of the board of education are for three years; the whole board cannot be changed inside of a period of two years, so, after all, the responsibility will certainly lodge where it should. Now, the mayor and the city council are to approve the appointments, so that will make our superintendent of education tolerably safe in this matter, and we should provide, unless two-thirds of the board of education feel that there is cause for discharging that man, that he should remain in office, so that he can proceed as an independent person, not merely proceed in order to satisfy some whim or caprice of a majority of the board. That is what that means. MR. TAYLOR: I wish to say a word THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fisher has the floor. MR. FISHER: I am willing to yield, if you wish. MR. TAYLOR: No; go ahead. MR. FISHER: I think the difficulty of this whole matter is this: There are certain members of this convention, as I said once before, who see things un- der what they think is the existing situa- tion, and who think they will always remain so. From my own personal ex- perience with the board of education I know that the situation has arisen when a small minority alone were suspicioned by certain people who did not have con- fidence in their motives on many oc- casions. Now, there are times when a situation like that is very embarrassing, and it might be that a portion of that board might be mistaken in certain mat- ters, and what we want to do under this charter is to provide for such a con- tingency. I want to call the attention of the Chair and the members of the Conven- tion to a number of these provisions; if you will take section 22, the board of education is given general supervision of the management of the public school system, power of maintenance, and so forth, of the schools; then you have sec- tion 23, which shows the powers, and so forth, in regard to the management of the schools, that is all given to a ma- jority vote of the board. The board of education then may fix all these mat- ters, may prescribe these rules ; they may be at variance with the views of the superintendent, and yet, if he can control six out of the fifteen voters, he can block anything being done, and I think that is a wrong system fundamen- tally. I think you are just as likely to have that condition of affairs as a con- dition of affairs where you have to pro- February 25 1082 1907 teet the majority. That won ’t do, from my point of view. We would all object to having that condition of affairs. Un- der the conditions as we have them now the superintendent can be employed for four years; under Judge Rinaker’s amendment you can make a contract with him not to exceed four years, and yet you eannot remove him if the ma- jority of the board should at any time become cris-cross to his policy. Now, I believe that would be wrong. If you leave in the provision that he can only be removed for cause, and upon written charges, then you have all the safeguards that he — many more safeguards than is given to the president of any college at the head of almost any educational in- stitution of which I know, and it seems to ine that a majority vote should be sufficient, if it is to be taken upon cause and written charges thereof. Now, he said if there is good cause that two-thirds will be in favor of that. Well, that does not follow. There can be a situation, there can easily arise .a situation where a majority of the voters, it may be nine out of fifteen, will be absolutely at variance with the others in regard to the superintendent. Well, then, if that -is so, perhaps there is no need of worrying about that; but sup- pose, for the sake of argument, that for some reason those six men should not vote to remove him, why, the nine men could not remove him under those con- ditions; they would have to get another vote. They would have to get ten. It seems to me it is wrong to have it that way; we ought to have it so that the majority may have the right of re- moval. THE CHAIRMAN : Are you ready for the question? MR. RINAKER: May I ask Mr. Fisher a question? MR. FISHER: Certainly. MR. RINAKER : In what way can the superintendent of schools block the general policy of the board under the provisions of this charter? MR. FISHER: Why, he could in all sorts of ways; he could keep them from carrying out a good many of their plans. Supposing the board was divided so that six of the members of the board were in favor of a certain policy of the superin- tendent, and nine of the members were against that policy; under that situation the superintendent and six men would run the school. MR. RINAKER : Is it not true that by a majority vote of the board it may designate its policy. MR. FISHER: Certainly. MR. RINAKER: Is it not also true that in 27 of 19, that the superintendent of education shall have general super- vision, subject to the board? MR. FISHER : Certainly. MR. RINAKER: Which is a ma- jority vote. MR. FISHER : Certainly, but the situation may easily arise, I repeat, may easily arise — it has arisen in other boards — where the executive officer is out of harmony with a majority of the board, and knowing he is there where they can- not remove him without a two-thirds vote, he can successfully defy the board; he can do practically anything he wants to, and he is perfectly safe. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon the motion to change from two- thirds to a majority. MR. TAYLOR: Just a word. You must remember that in the appointment of a superintendent of education, he is an officer charged with initiative ; you must remember that responsibility under the board rests more upon him than upon any single man connected with the public schools. If the tenure of his office is made to depend upon the turn of one vote at any meeting of a board, I sub- mit that a large proportion of his time, if he wants to hold onto his office, will be taken up in merely building his fences and keeping them strong. What February 25 1083 1907 we want is a man who will be so secure in his position as to be enabled to carry on and out some reasonable policy. Another matter has been overlooked. The mayor can appoint; thus the num- ber of members of the board at the next appointment may entirely tip the beam and come to the support of the administration. All this long time block- ing of the board is imaginary. What we want is to secure men that will give some attention to the question of effi- ciency of the administration, an admin- istration that has to do with some 6,000 teachers and nearly 300,000 scholars, and $11,000,000 in money, and $60,000,000 invested in buildings. Now, no matter what we say about the board, it is a changing body, coming and going all the time, and here is the one officer who can give continuity and progress, and something else, and look to the initiative of the whole thing, and here we are seeking to make him subject to the whim of one person, who may overthrow entirely the whole policy before it has had any chance to justify itself. I submit that, in doing this, we are stultifying ourselves, and that we are eliminating efficiency. THE CHAIRMAN: Will the secre- tary call the roll? MR. B. A. ECKHART: I just want to say one word. A few moments ago a motion was passed, providing that you should not make a contract with the superintendent for more than four years. Now, by implication, that would mean that you have a right to make a contract for a term of four years. If this mo- tion now pending prevails, of substitut- ing a majority for a two-thirds vote, the board of education can remove the super- intendent one month, or two months, or three months, after the contract is made. In that case your contract does not amount to anything. MR. ROBINS: I am profoundly con- cerned in this provision because, from what I have been able to see, the ad- ministration of the schools demands it, I know. The present business manager, Mr. John Guilford, has been re-elected every year; he has stayed in office thirty- eight years; he has the entire business administration of the schools. He has administered them so honestly that no one has ever questioned his integrity in all that time. There may have been some talk as to more efficiency in some of the departments, but none in regard to the matter of integrity. Now, he could have been displaced at any time at any of the annual meetings during those thirty-eight years that he has remained in office — a most important and responsible position. The present superintendent has been in office about six years, under precisely the same conditions. The things that are thrown out as being an evil and a menace, the remark by Mr. Eckhart who just had the floor a few minutes ago, show how unnecessary this is. I imagine, in the minds of some people, the present board is a most obnoxious one, the most obnox- ious in certain ways that will ever exist in the history of the city; and yet this gentleman is in full control and will be in full control until the term of his office expires, and maybe a good deal longer. Now, I submit that the difficulties of the situation do not come from this end of it, but you are offering a condition that would make you substantial difficul- ties, and have been witnessed by the ex- perience of other bodies in the past. Discipline, says Doctor Taylor. Now, Doctor Taylor merely discloses in that statement that he does not know how the discipline is obtained in the board of education. The discipline over every- body in the board of education is in the hands of a school management commit tee, and is acted upon by that committee in every instance, and the super- intendent simply exercises no dis- cipline — exerts no discipline except such as is authorized by the school management committee. The business manager takes no action in regard to February 25 1084 1907 one penny of these many millions of dollars, except as authorized by the committee, the building and grounds committee; and, gentlemen, if you want responsibility in the board of education, you want to keep the power of respon- sibility there. THE CHAIRMAN: Will the Secre- tary call the roll? MR. YOPICKA: I believe this is a question which should be divided; I think we should first take up the super- intendent and decide whether he should be appointed and removed by a two- thirds vote or not, and then we should take up the office of business manager in turn. THE CHAIRMAN; It is not a divis- ible question, Mr. Yopicka. Let the Secretary call the roll. The question is to change the power of removal from two-thirds to a majority. MR. LINEHAN : I would like to say a very few words. I believe that some controversy had existed for the past year in this city in regard to the school board, and if some questions had not arisen there would be no necessity for a proposition of this kind at all. Let me call the at- tention of the Convention to the fact that you do no propose to make any such rule in regard to the park board, you do not propose to make any such rule in regard to the library board, because no difference of opinion has arisen, no difference of opinion exists there. Now, why should you propose to make a rule at the present time like this, when per- haps inside of a year or two the whole complexion of this board will be changed, and the rule you make to-day will become a hardship instead of a benefit? It may not be the same board, and in my mind the only way is to legislate by the major- ity, and that is the straight out way, irrespective of who are the members or who may be the superintendent of schools. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the secretary call the roll. Yeas — Beilfuss, Burke, Fisher, Green- acre, Guerin, Linehan, MacMillan, Mc- Goorty, McKinley, Merriam, Owens, Post, Robins, Shepard, Snow, Thompson, Yo- picka, Zimmer. — 18. Nays — Beebe, Bennett, Brosseau, Cole, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Harrison, Hoyne, Hunter, Lathropf, Michaelis, Paullin, Pendarvis, Raymer, Rinaker, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Smulski, Taylor, Wilkins, Young. — 23. (During roll call.) MR. YOPICKA: I am in favor of making the appointment and removal of the superintendent by a two-thirds of the majority; therefore I vote aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the motion to change from two-thirds to a majority, the yeas are 18, and the nays 23, and the motion is lost. The Secretary will read No. 11. THE SECRETARY: No. 11, page 132. MR. ROBINS: I wonder if that was not a mis-print, where you find, in No. 10, “but pending the hearing of such charges the officer charged may, by a two-thirds vote be suspended by the board. ’ ’ I should imagine if a majority were to vote against the officer they would not want to hold him in office pending the hearing, unless you get a two-thirds vote to suspend him. I move, Mr. Chairman, that the two-thirds in that instance be changed to a major- ity. THE CHAIRMAN: “But pending the hearing of such charges, the officer charged may, by a two-thirds vote, be suspended by the board. ’ ’ Mr. Robins moves to change that to “a majority.’’ Are you ready for the question? All those in favor signify by saying aye; contrary, no. The motion is lost. THE SECRETARY: 133, 13, 14, 15. MR. COLE: I would like to insist upon a roll call on that majority ques- tion. THE CHAIRMAN; I think you are 1085 1907 February 25 too late to call "for a roll call now, Mr. Cole. MR. ROSENTHAL: In section 13 the word ‘ ‘ headquarters ’ ’ should be changed to 1 ‘offices.” THE CHAIRMAN: If there are no objections it will be changed to “of- fices. ’ ’ THE SECRETARY : 14 and 15. MR. POST: In 15, I move to strike out all after the word * 1 leaseholds, ’ ’ in the second line. I do not care to dis- cuss the question, and I do not even care to ask for a roll call. I discussed the matter once before and a roll call was had upon it. I now move to strike it out. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Post moves to strike out everything in section 15, after the first sentence, “The board of education shall have the power to let school property on leasehold” ; all those who favor striking out all the succeed- ing part of that paragraph will signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. The motion is lost. THE SECRETARY: 16 and 17 MR. ROSENTHAL: On the top of page 134, where the words “personal property” are shown, I think we ought to substitute the words, 1 1 goods, chat- tels and fixtures, ’ ’ because leases are personal property. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal moves that the words, “goods, chattels and fixtures,” shall be used instead of the words “personal property.” If there are no objections that change will be made; proceed. THE SECRETARY: 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. MR. MERRIAM: 27. I move to strike out the sentence, “text books or apparatus once adopted shall not be changed within four years thereafter.” THE CHAIRMAN; Mr. Mcrriam moves to strike out the last two lines in the second paragraph in section 27, “Text books or apparatus once adopted shall not be changed within four years thereafter. ’ ’ MR. TAYLOR : Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain why that was put in. It was thought to be an unnecessary hard- ship upon the parents who have to buy these text books to have them changed much oftener than once in four years. There was this also that if the text books should be retained for four years, more care might be taken in selection. It seems to me that the first reason is quite obvious. THE CHAIRMAN : Are there any — MR. MERRIAM: What I would like to say to that is, you never know what sort of text books may be written in four years, and particularly you never know what sort of apparatus may be in- vented in a period of four years. There may be an important improvement made in apparatus six months after a par- ticular kind has been adopted, and then you would be tied up to use the old ap- paratus for three years and six months, and that would be a hardship. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? MR. MERRIAM. No; I am not. THE CHAIRMAN: Pardon me. MR. MERRIAM: I don’t know how it is with the board of education, but if you want to bind yourselves to use par- ticular text books for a period of four years, I can imagine that it can be much better to change them in six weeks. I don’t know why the board of education should be tied up for four years. As a matter of policy you don’t want to change books for any light and transient cause. If the change is made and it should not be wise, it would be unfortu- nate to tie the hands of the board of education on it, and it seems preposter- ous to me. MR. GUERIN: I agree with Prof. Mcrriam, especially in regard to books on natural science, and also for appara- tus. But I agree with the main proposi- tion and the fact that we should not February 25 1086 1907 change text books, except such books as may be changed on account of advancing science, and I would suggest that a sub- stitute for the motion — that to Prof. Merriam’s motion we add to that section the following: “Unless by request of the school superintendent and by a vote of a majority of the school board.’’ Simply add that to it. Then I think that will cover the ground of cases where there are necessities that books should be changed. If there was such a neces- sity it would be disappointing, you know. THE CHAIRMAN : Dr. Guerin moves to amend as a substitute for Prof. Mer- riam ’s motion that for the words in the last section there should be added, “un- less by the request of the superintendent of schools and the concurrence of the majority of the board of education.” MR. THOMPSON : It seems to me that is striking out this line anyway, ex- cept by consent of the superintendent. THE CHAIRMAN: Sir? MR. THOMPSON : It seems to me that is practically the same thing. That is striking out this line anyway, except by consent of the superintendent. Prof. Merriam’s motion is to leave the thing in the hands of the board without making any new agreement in regard to text books and apparatus. The board should say and dictate it. I think the argument that Mr. Merriam made in reference to apparatus is certainly the strongest argu- ment that can be made. If any business institution started in to restrict itself as this calls for, for four years, it would soon go out of office. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? MR. GUERIN; May I say one word? THE CHAIRMAN: Sir? ' MR. GUERIN : I wish to say one word on this. The reason I don’t want that stricken out is this: There are sev- eral other text books that evidently might not be necessary to change. For example: A reader, a speller, or books on mathe- matics, which are fixed sciences. But in regard to natural science they are constantly being changed. Take, for example, the subject of geology, and the subject of chemistry, and biology. Those subjects are con- stantly changing, and we might require to change the text books, but the other books we should not change, and we should not change them without good reason. Anyone who has been on the school board must know that they do not want to be constantly bothered with book men coming around wanting them to change books ; change books where there is no necessity for it. I think that Prof. Merriam’s point is well taken. I would like to have Prof. Merriam ex- plain whether he thinks I am right on this, subject, in regard to books on natural science especially. MR. RAYMER: I would like to ask what the amendment by Dr. Guerin was? THE CHAIRMAN: You would like to hear the amendment? MR. RAYMER : Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: To add to the last sentence on section 27 the words “unless by request of the superintendent of education and with the concurrence of a majority of the board of education.” THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for Dr. Guerin’s amendment? All those in favor say aye; opposed, no. It is lost. The question reverts upon Prof. Merriam ’s motion to strike out these words, the last sentence. All those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. YOUNG: What is this? THE CHAIRMAN: Opposed, no. The Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Beebe, Cole, Eckhart, J. W., Fisher, Greenacre, Hoyne, Lathrop, Line- han, McGoorty, McKinley, Merriam, Michaelis, Owens, Pendarvis, Post, Ray- mer, Robins, Rosenthal, Shepard, Smul- ski, Snow, Thompson. — 22. Nays — Beilfuss, Bennett, Brosseau, Burke, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eidmann, Guerin, Harrison, Hunter, Mac- Millan, Paullin, Rinaker, Shanahan, Tay- February 25 1087 1907 lor, Yopicka, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer, —19. (During roll call.) MR, McGOORTY: What is the ques- tion? I will record my vote later. MR. McGOORTY: I want to be re- corded as voting aye. THE SECRETARY : McGoorty, aye. THE CHAIRMAN: On Mr. Mer- riam’s motion the yeas are 22 and the nays are 19. The motion is carried. Proceed. THE SECRETARY: 28, 29. MR. ROBINS: In the second para- graph of 27 it provides for the control of teachers, principals and assistant and district superintendents and all other officers, and all apparatus, and educa- tional text books and so forth, that it must be under the recommendation of the superintendent, unless it be by two- thirds vote of all the members of the board ; that no change shall be introduced .by the board except on the recommenda- tion of the superintendent unless by a two-thirds vote of all the members of the board. THE CHAIRMAN: Where is that? MR. HUNTER: The same section. MR. ROBINS: 137. THE SECRETARY: 27. MR. ROBINS: j.nere is the same ob- jection to that provision, Mr. Chairman, that exists with the other two-thirds provision, only a little more so. The rule in the board of education at the present time, as I understand it, has been followed for some time by the board in all matters of this sort, asking for the superintendent ’s recommendation, and the superintendent makes his recom- mendation, and that gives a great ad- vantage, of course, to the particular book so recommended. But if against that recommendation a majority of the board, by reason of the price, or by reason of many things that come in, should determine otherwise, it seems to me it is well that the board should have the pow’er and the responsibility in the matter. Iu regard to some text books that have been adopted since I was a member of the board, it appeared that Avhile the superintendent was, to the best of my judgment, doing his best with this particular publication it was discovered that over in the state of Indiana they offered it at a less price by several cents for the same book, which amounted to $18,000.00 to $20,000.00 less for the whole quantity than we were offered here in the City of Chicago. It was the identical book. Certain members of the board of education found out this fact and submitted it to the board, and the book company was required to make these reductions. Now 7 , one-third with the superintendent would have passed that recommendation on that particular night that it was made. I mean it would have taken two-thirds to have taken any other action. It would not have been taken in my judgment. Now 7 , in this matter of apparatus, there is the old order and the new 7 ; old text books and the new. Now, not neces- sarily everything that is old is best. Many times there have been improve- ments made in that department, in ap- paratus and in text books. There is a certain tendency on the part of boards of administration everywhere to run along general, steady lines, without change, no matter what the benefits are. It seems to me it is unfortunate if this board of education, charged with the responsibility of providing the best means for the education of the chil- dren of Chicago, could not take action unless they got the recommendation of the superintendent, unless there are two- thirds of the members voting. It seems to me that is a mistake. It simply means this: That if by any possible chance the superintendent or the board should be related in any w’ise to the publishing interest so as not to get the full view of competing books, that the people of Chicago would not get that benefit. Now, it does look now to mo February 25 1088 1907 as if you are giving the board of edu- cation — that you should give the board of education some power in this matter, and I do not believe that any injury, but rather benefit, would result in a majority rule, as it has in the past. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the words, ‘ ‘ two-thirds, ’ ' should be stricken out and “a majority vote” substituted. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the amendment to the second paragraph of section 27, “unless it be by a two- thirds vote, ’ 5 should be changed to ‘ * un- less it be by majority vote.” Are you ready for the question? All those in favor signify by saying aye; opposed, no. As many as favor say aye. To the contrary, no. The Chair cannot de- cide and the Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Beilfuss, Burke, Cole, Fisher, Greenacre, Guerin, Linehan, MacMillan, McGoorty, Merriam, Owens, Pendarvis, Post, Bobins, Shanahan, Smulski, Thomp- son, Yopicka, Zimmer. — 19. Nays — Beebe, Bennett, Brosseau, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Harrison, Hoyne, Hun- ter, Lathrop, Michaelis, Paullin, Rosen- thal, Taylor, Wilkins, Young. — 21. THE CHAIRMAN: On Mr. Robins’ motion the ayes are 19 and the nays are 21. The motion is lost. The Secretary will now proceed. THE SECRETARY: 28, 29 MR. ROSENTHAL: In section 29 I want to strike out everything after the second sentence, that is in the fourth line, and substitute as a separate para- graph this amendment which I send up. THE CHAIRMAN: Please send it up here. The Secretary will read it. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Rosen- thal: The board of education shall main- tain a bureau of buildings and construc- tion which shall have charge of the erec- tion, construction, alteration and repair of all buildings under the control of the board of education. The board of education shall, subject to the provisions of the civil service law, appoint a chief architect, who shall be at the head of the bureau of buildings and construc- tion, and also a chief engineer, who shall have charge of the matters relating to the heating, ventilating and sanita- tion of buildings. The architect and chief engineer shall be removed only in pursuance of the provisions of the civil service law. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal moves to substitute that for 29, after the first sentence of 29. Are you ready for the question? MR. POST: I would like to ask if that included the engineer as a civil service officer? MR. SHEPARD: I think it does. MR. RAYMER: We discussed that proposition in this convention at great length. I do not think it is good policy to change the wording of the board of education as it is fixed here to-day. I think, Mr. Rosenthal, it places the chief architect under the civil service, accord- ing to your resolution. MR. ROSENTHAL: Yes, he is how. MR. RAYMER; I think it will a mis- take to make that change. I look upon the position of chief architect, so far as his appointment is concerned, or his se- lection, very much as you would select an attorney for the board. A young man coming out of college could unquestion- ably pass an examination on technical lines in a manner that would excel an old practical architect. That, in my judgment, would be a mistake, to make it possible any such condition could pre- vail. An architect, from experience, should gather a great many ideas that you do not get out of the books, and we want the best talent possible for this board, for work of this kind, and I shalf personally be very sorry to see the chief architect and the chief engineer placed under civil service. MR. ROSENTHAL: May I say a word in favor of tins resolution? February 25 1089 1907 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. ROSENTHAL: This resolution, as a matter of fact, presents two points; one is the creation of a separate bureau by the board of education, of buildings and constructions, instead of putting the architect — the chief architect and the chief engineer under the business man- ager to give them responsible positions and to put them at the head of these de- partments, and after consulting quite a number of engineers and architects I have learned that you are able and will be able to get a more available man and a more responsible man and better man if you will give him an independent posi- tion at the head of a bureau instead of putting him under a business manager. I have also been told, and learned it by inquiry, and among others talked with the architect for the board of education, that there is no connection whatever be- tween the office for the board of educa- tion and the chief engineer, and that of business manager. So the first object of that resolution is to take him outside of the office. Now, I myself made strenuous efforts here to have this architect, the chief ar- chitect and the chief engineer, withdrawn from the operation of the civil service law, and it was on my motion that that was carried. But, since that time I have also discussed the matter with architects and there seems to be a general senti- ment in favor of leaving them under the civil service law, so long as you get a board of architects to conduct the ex- amination. And, in view of the fact that the ex- amination is not of that negligible char- acter which Mr. Raymer imagined, I thought it might just as well be left under the operation of the civil service law. Now, just one more word: The ques- tion discussed here is as to whether the architect may be removed. I am told by the civil service officials that this is a very simple matter to have him re- moved for inefficiency and to have charges brought against him to show he is not up to the office requirements, and that would be sufficient for his dismissal. MR. HUNTER: I desire to ask Mr. Rosenthal a question. Do you mean to tell me that the chief engineer and the chief architect are sub- servient to the wishes of the business manager? MR. ROSENTHAL: Under the pres- ent draft they are. MR. ROBINS: They are not, in the actual administration of the city. THE CHAIRMAN: Will you gen- tlemen face this way so the reporter can get it? Are you ready for the question? MR. YOUNG: I desire to state, mere- ly by way of illustration, that there is one subject that the committee gave con- siderable attention to and listened to a great many ideas on; it seemed to me, in the carrying out of this matter, that there were two general lines; one of business and one of education; and, it seemed that the board should have two servants, one at the head of the edu- cational department, and one at the head of the business department, in order to avoid the various conflicts that might otherwise come up, and, if I remember rightly, those that came before our com- mittee seemed to think that the work could be carried out in this way and with less conflict than it could by having so many different heads. MR. SHANAHAN; When this mat- ter was under discussion before the holi- days, and tjhe understanding was that the position that they wanted to exempt at that time was a consulting engineer and not a mechanical engineer. Now, under the wording of section 29 it ex- empts the chief architect and the chief engineer. Now, there is a difference be- tween the chief mechanical engineer and the chief consulting, or chief civil en- gineer, and I would like somebody to ex- plain what position they would like to exempt. February 25 1090 1907 ME. BOSENTHAL: It is as stated in this resolution. ME. MacMILLAN : The point made by Mr. Bosenthal is not carried out by section 10 of this article, and that made by Gen. Young is not carried out under section 10 of this article. There are not two departments in the board of educa- tion under the present draft of the char- ter. There are more. There is, besides a superintendent of education and a business manager, an attorney and an auditor. Now, I submit it is placing a highly technical officer in charge of a general business manager when you place the appointment of an architect and a chief engineer in the hands of a business manager. It seems to me, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that one of the ways of get- ting at this would be to go back and demand section 10 and make the ap- pointment of the chief architect and chief engineer on a par with the attorney and the auditor. They are certainly posi- tions of as much importance as that of the auditor. They are highly technical positions and on a basis on the same plane as that of attorney. It seems to me that to put their ap- pointment in the hands of a business manager is to put something in his hands which is entirely outside of his realm and the duties prescribed for him in this instrument. If it would not be out of order I would like to move as an amendment, go- ing back to section 10, the appointive position of architect and chief engineer, that they be placed in the hands of a board, and I so move that we would re- vert to section 10, and as a substitute for Mr. Bosenthal ’s motion, that the appoint- ment of the chief architect and chief en- gineer be placed in the hands of the board, and the words describing the of- fice be inserted in line 2 of section 10. That is where they belong. It is perfectly ridiculous, it seems to me, to put the appointment of an ar- chitect and a chief engineer in the hands of the business manager of the board. ME. FISHEE: I coincide with what Mr. MacMillan has said about putting the architect under the business manager, but a little while ago we were discussing the function of the board of education and gentlemen seemed to be very appre- hensive that the board was going to play politics with the superintendent. Now r , you cannot put the architect right in the hands of the board and you can gamble on politics in that appoint- ment. You do not have to guess at this thing. We all know that is the way the thing happens in some instances. I un- derstand we have the architect ap- pointed under the civil service. Why shouldn ’t the architect and chief en- gineer be where they are — appointees of the civil service? It is a technical mat- ter and should have a technical examina- tion. The business manager, who looks after the policy of the business ends, is to be an appointee of the board, and, therefore, he takes care of the policy. But the architect takes care of the plans and all those things. It is one of the offices in which you can have civil ser- vice examination, and you are not to understand that your civil service answer will not provide for experience, so that your young boy out of school will leave an experienced man to disadvant- age. I am in favor of Mr. MacMillan’s substitute. THE CHAIEMAN : The question is that the chief engineer and chief archi- tect, provided in section 10, in accord- ance with the designation of their duties as described by Mr. Bosenthal. MB. YOUNG: I rise to a point of order. I think you cannot amend sec- tion 10 in that way now. THE CHAIEMAN : That really can- not be done without a reconsideration of that section. The chair was trying to get at it in the quickest way. As many as there are in favor of Mr. Mac- Millan’s motion will say Aye. Opposed m February 25 No. The motion is lost. The question reverts to Mr. Rosenthal’s motion. MR. RAYMER: I am going to ask that the resolution of Mr. Rosenthal be divided, so that the selection or appoint- ment of these two officials be made by the board, but they do not be put under civil service, but be exempt from civil service. MR. MacMILLAN: We have just voted on that. % MR. RAYMER: I did not know it was decided. MR. MacMILLAN ; I submit that is the motion which has just been voted on and decided. I am entirely in agree- ment with the aldermen on that, but I believe he voted the other way. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is on Mr. Rosenthal’s motion? MR. McGOORTY: What is it? THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary read it again. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Rosen- thal: The board of education shall maintain a bureau of buildings and construction, etc. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? MR. SHEPARD: If you are going to apply the civil service law, and bring this under the civil service law, you should not attempt to amend the civil service law, and Mr. Rosenthal should strike that out from his resolution. He cannot prescribe rules for the civil serv- ice commission. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any ob- jection to that? MR. ROSENTHAL: I think it is very important that the examination for architects be held only for archi- tects. MR. MacMILLAN: May I answer Mr. Rosenthal’s question? MR. ROSENTHAL: Yes, sir. MR. MacMILLAN: If that be the case, why shouldn’t the office of chief engineer be submitted to a board of 1907 engineers? Why make a resolution ex- cluding him? MR. ROSENTHAL: I have no ob- jection to that. THE CHAIRMAN: You agree thalt that shall be stricken out? MR. ROSENTHAL: I agree. THE CHAIRMAN: It is stricken out. MR. G. W. DIXON: Question. THE CHAIRMAN: As many as are in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye; opposed, no. The resolution is lost. MR. FISHER: Roll call. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you desire a roll call? MR. FISHER: Yes. MR. ROBINS: I cannot quite see why this desire is to destroy the or- ganization of the past at every point, even where there is no trouble. Now, the chief engineer and the chief archi- tect, or the architect, has control, at the present time, of all of the buildings of the board of education. It is a position that is one of high honor, as arranged at the present time, gentlemen, and under these provisions the man is a clerk of the business man- ager and subject to the business man- ager, and you simply cannot get the kind of an architect that the great school construction work of Chicago is entitled to, under such conditions as that. You want to have an architect who has a great interest in the character of the business, who is up on all questions of architecture, who knows the whole story, and who will give to your build- ings character, individuality and the highest sort of excellence. Now, the head engineer is the man of the same type exactly. This whole, entire ventilation system in Chicago is the invention of Mr. Waters, who is the present chief engineer. Now, take those two men and make them clerks of 1091 February 25 1092 1907 the business manager, and the whole business falls into the general adminis- tration of the business of the board, and all of it, except the buildings and some relative matters, such as the dis- cipline of the board, is subject to the school management committee. It seems to me this convention now is seeking to do a thing which it would not do if it thoroughly understood the sit- uation. I hope, gentlemen, that this board and this convention will not put under a business manager the architect and chief engineer if we hope to get the kind of service for those two de- partments that the City of Chicago is entitled to. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Robins, you are talking pending a roll call. The Chair has not interrupted you, knowing that you had something to say, but the Chair will have to interpose now be- cause some of the members are insist- ing upon the roll call being taken. The question is upon the adoption of Mr j Rosenthal ’s motion. Yeas — Beebe, Beilfuss, Burke, Cole, Fisher, Greenacre, Guerin, Lathrop, Lin- ehan, Merriam, Michaelis, Owens, Pen- darvis, Post, Robins, Rosenthal, Shana- han, Shepard, Snow, Taylor, Thompson, Zimmer — 22. Nays — Bennett, Brosseau, Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Harrison, Hoyne, Hunter, MacMillan, McGoorty, McKinley, Paullin, Raymer, Smulski, Yopicka, Wilkins, Young — 17. THE CHAIRMAN: On Mr. Rosen- thal’s motion the ayes are 22 and the nays are 17. It is adopted. Proceed. THE SECRETARY: Section 30. MR. TAYLOR: Gentlemen, inad- vertently, I presume, the drafting com- mittee has omitted after the word “features” on line first and line third the word “principals,” which was in- cluded in the original draft. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection it will be inserted. MR. TAYLOR: There is no objec- tion. THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed. THE SECRETARY: 31. THE CHAIRMAN: That finishes the special order. Proceed now to Sec- tion — MR. TAYLOR: Doesn’t this com- pulsory education come under educa- tion? THE CHAIRMAN: That is not a special matter. Your motion was Sec- tion 19. That will be taken up in its regular order. MR. TAYLOR: I meant to include it. THE CHAIRMAN: Article XIV. THE SECRETARY: Page 111, Ar- ticle XIY. Streets and Public Places. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; 112—6. MR. ROSENTHAL: It seems to me, in Section 4, where we give this unlim- ited power to the city council to permit the use of space below the level or sur- face of the streets, it ought to be lim- ited to a certain time. That ought to be limited to a period of not to ex- ceed in each case one year. I, therefore, move it as an amendment to that sec- tion. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the amendment? MR. ROSENTHAL: To limit any such grant for a period of one year, because otherwise it can be given for an unlimited period. MR. MERRIAM: Read the second paragraph. MR. ROSENTHAL: That may mean as it may provide in the particular or- dinance. Now, it does not provide for revocation. I do not believe in giving irrevocable grants. MTR. HARRISON: I will offer as an amendment to that the substitution of the word “ten” for “one,” and give the city the right to grant a franchise for ten years. February 25 1093 1907 THE CHAIRMAN: That is Section 4 you are referring to? ME, ROSENTHAL: That is all right if you have it definite. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harrison moves to amend that. MR, ROSENTHAL: I accept that. MR. POST: I move as a substitute to strike out the words “as the city council may provide” at the end of the second line at the next paragraph. MR. SNOW: On the motion made by Mr. Post, I would like to say that besides a limit of ten years, that the council may provide that the city, as it does at the present time, may revoke those grants at any time at the will of the council or the mayor. That pro- vision should be inserted in every one of those grants. MR. POST: Then both motions should stand? MR. SNOW : Then both the motions will stand. MR. POST: I am willing to accept that. MR. MacMILLAN: Do I understand Mr. Harrison's motion to be for a pe- riod not exceeding ten years? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Mr. Post moved to strike out “as the council may provide.” MR. SNOW: Of course, I understand he withdraws that in case a ten-year period is fixed so that the council may still make it revocable at will? MR. FISHER: Where is this amend- ment supposed to be inserted? THE CHAIRMAN: The Post amend- ment provides that the city council shall have power for a period of not greater than ten years to permit the use of space below the sidewalk in Section 4. MR. ROSENTHAL: No. MR. SNOW: No. MR. ROSENTHAL: It should be this way: No such terms shall be for a term exceeding a period of ten years, and subject to revocation by the city coun- cil. MR. FISHER: By what? THE CHAIRMAN : By revocation of the city council. MR, FISHER: At any time? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR, ROSENTHAL: This is the way it should read: Any such grant should not exceed ten years and should be sub- ject to the terms thereof, and subject to revocation as the city council may provide. MR, FISHER: I thought I would call your attention to the language — “as the city council may provide.” I think this is susceptible of considerable am- biguity. You might get out the ten- year permit and not be able to do any- thing with it for ten years. Now, I think it should be “revokable by the city council at any time. ' ' MR. POST: My proposition was this, to leave Mayor Harrison's amendment as it stands, i. e., for ten years, and then strike out the six words, to re- move any ambiguity, so that although the term is for ten years, it is still sub- ject to revocation at any time. MR. SHEPARD: It should be. MR. FISHER: That is the point. I do not quite think that the question implies that best, unless it is specifically stated in it: “Subject to the revoca- tion of the city council at any time.” THE CHAIRMAN: I think we are all agreed that the provision is that the terms shall be limited to ten years and the city council shall have the right to revoke at any time. Is that the view of the Convention? All in favor signify by saying aye; opposed, no. It is car- ried. Proceed. THE SECRETARY: No. 6. MR. ROSENTHAL: No. 5. An at- tempt is made there to interfere with what is at the present time a general law in regard to the reversion of real estate. February 25 1094 1907 I see no reason for ambiguity in the city charter in any such matter that I know of as to general reversionary rights. ME. PENDARVIS: You cannot do that. MR. ROSENTHAL: The point of the matter is that if a public law, or the public street, the fee of which is vested in the city is vacated, the title would revert to the original owners, under the law. Here the attempt is made to have that revert to somebody else. It seems to me it is inexpedient to put it into a city charter. They ought to have a matter of that sort covered by a general law applying to all the states. I now move to strike out that entire section. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion of Mr. Rosenthal. The mat- ter is before the house. MR. FISHER: That matter was dis- cussed very thoroughly before the com- mittee, and it was thought this should be the thing to clear up a lot of am- biguity that existed. Now, while it could be done by a general statute, if the rest of the people of the state are not interested in having a general statute, then we are not. MR. ROSENTHAL: There are more cases that come up from the country than come up from Chicago. MR. FISHER: If the general assem- bly were to put through a law, the City of Chicago would be satisfied, but should we put our reqeust into the state charter? MR. SNOW: Who would it revert to? MR. FISHER: It would revert to the state. It would revert to the prop- erty owners on either hand. This clears up any ambiguity there is. MR. ROSENTHAL: May I ask a question? MR. FISHER: Yes, sir. MR. ROSENTHAL: Does this clear up the difficulty we are having at the present time, where the provision of this charter itself says except where such plat shall be vacated according to law? MR. PENDARVIS: That does not clear it up. MR. FISHER: That was intended to accomplish that result. The matter I referred to was discussed by Mr. Wil- son and Prof. Freund, and this is the re- sult. Prof. Freund, I am sorry to say, is not here with us this afternoon. I am not arguing in favor of the exact language. All I want to call the at- tention of the Convention to is that the matter was pretty fully considered in the committee, and this was thought to have value on that ground. If anybody has any specific objection as to the form of the language, I think it should be stated. MR. SNOW: If this matter should stand as a matter of law, it certainly should stand as a matter of equity at the present time. When we vacate, as the council is frequently called upon to do, a street or alley, it is a common law deduction, and most of our common laws are so construed that the rever- sionary right goes back to the heirs of the original subdivider. The City of Chicago requires - pay- ment from those who are being benefited by the vacation, and it should be in position to give title as it stands now; unless those benefited by the vacation can secure a quit claim deed from the original heirs, which is a thing I know in a great many instances cannot be done, as the heirs cannot be found, and the fact leaves a cloud on the title of the property. Now, that should be cleared up, and if this clause can stand the law, it is one which should be adopted by this Convention. MR. PENDARVIS: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the Supreme Court has expressly held that the legislature February 25 1095 1907 cannot deprive the reversionary right. It is so decided in the 85th Illinois, and the second paragraph of Section 7 is subject to the same objection, and it has been absolutely held to be sur- plussage and of no legal value what- ever. The legislature cannot deprive the original owner of the right to the reversion. MR. GREENACRE: Can the owner himself? MR. PENDARVIS: No. MR. GREENACRE: A case came up on an act passed to remedy the trouble, and it was held that the reversion or fee should vest in the ownership of the property on each side, and that was ex- pressly held unconstitutional, and it was decided that you could not deprive a man of his property in that way by legislation; that is, his reversionary rights. I do not think an amendment to this constitution which authorizes this act was intended to amend the constitution as to property rights, or reversionary rights, and I believe it is a nullity, and, therefore, I am in favor of having it stricken out. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, this section provides that when a man by his own voluntary act MR. FISHER: That's right. MR. BENNETT: dedicates a piece of land by making a plat, it pro- vides the fees shall vest in the city. MR. GREENACRE: “For the uses intended and indicated by the plat" — that is whdt it says. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bennett has the floor. MR. BENNETT: In my judgment, that should go in and clear up the mat- ter. As it is now, it will prevent such very exacting compensation. I think this section should remain in a charter. MR. HUNTER: Mr. Chairman, I have in mind a particular case in point where something like 1,400 feet were recently dedicated to a street for street purposes. I know that party that dedi- cated that for street purposes would not like to have those streets or parts of this street vacated at the request of anyone, or at the will of the city coun- cil, unless he knew that would revert to him. Now, I am speaking for my- self now. About 1,300 feet. I would certainly not waste a vote for anything that would allow them to vacate that at any time the council should see fit, and then have it revert to somebody else. There is, in other words, where I live — there are several parks; and there are buildings in some of those parks; and they were all dedicated for the use of the people who live in that locality. I know of one particular build- ing that certain interests out there are very anxious to have used for other purposes than that for which it was dedicated. That would revert to the original property owner. Now, I am talking about a piece of property which is worth over half a million dollars, or about half a million dollars. They were trying very earnestly, certain interests, to have a station, a police station, turned into a public library, and it was originally given as a town hall to the parks — a town hall and a police station in one — and as long as the city leaves it as it is, using it for a police station, it is all right, but the moment they change it it reverts to the original prop- erty owner. I am in a position where I don't want to have that done. I do not believe it is legal, and I do not want it, so I am prepared to vote against it. THE CHAIRMAN: If Mr. Bennett has no objection, the question will be upon Mr. Rosenthal’s proposition. As many as favor Mr. Rosenthal's propo- sition to strike out the section will sig- nify by saying aye; opposed, no. The motion is carried. Proceed. THE SECRETARY: No. 6. MR. ROSENTHAL: No. 6, Mr. February 25 1096 1907 Chairman. I move the words in the second line of No. 6, “Streets or alleys intersecting the same,” should come out; and also that the last sentence of the paragraph, which says: “A map or plat of land subdivided into lots, with- out streets or alleys intersecting the same, shall not require such approval in order to be recorded. THE CHAIRMAN: Will you read that? THE SECRETARY: I have got it here. MR. ROSENTHAL: I make that mo- tion. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to say MR. ROSENTHAL: Permit me. I want to speak to that. In regard to that matter, I have had a talk with Mr. Freund, and Mr. Freund showed me a letter this morning from the recorder of deeds, in which he stated the objec- tions in such a provision. Now, the trouble very often is that in regard to this subdivided and platted land the platter and subdivider may include more land than he actually has, and in- clude part of the street or alley without intending to include any part of the street or alley. Every plat and sub- division in the city should be submit- ted to some competent person for ap- proval before it is put of record, other- wise it may include part of a street or alley. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, this section, as drawn, requires the submis- sion of the plat where there is any in- tersecting street or alley. The recorder must provide for such inspection, or it will simply be a nullity. This last sec- tion gives a man the right to subdivide a lot, for instance, so long as he does not encroach upon the street, a right which he ought to have. If he has a hundred-foot lot, and wants to make a new plat and divide it into two lots, without encroaching on the street, the city has no interest in the question. The only thing the city is interested in is the street. MR. ROSENTHAL: Streets and al- leys, you mean. MR. BENNETT: Yes, sir. What possible objection can there be to hav- ing them submitted where the streets and alleys are intersecting? MR. ROSENTHAL: What possible objection can there be to having every plat in the city submitted to some au- thority for approval? MR. BENNETT: What do you mean by city property? MR. ROSENTHAL: Any piece of land in the limits of the City of Chi- cago. MR. BENNETT: This included property the city .is not interested in. The city is simply interested in the street feature. A man desires to sub- divide his property for mere con- venience, and he has the right to do it, just the same as he has in regard to any other instrument. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? (Cries of “Question.”) THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal’s motion is to strike out the words “with streets or alleys intersecting the same,” and also “a map or plat of land sub- divided into lots, without streets or al- leys intersecting the same, shall not re- quire such approval in order to be recorded.” All those in favor of the motion signify the same by saying aye; opposed, no. All those in favor say aye; opposed, no. The noes have it. THE SECRETARY: No. 6. MR. ROSENTHAL: I ask for a roll call. MR. HUNTER: It is no good; you have lost it. MR. FISHER: I want to call the court’s attention — or the chair’s atten- tion — to the vote on this last section. A number of us understood it was Mr. February 25 1097 1907 Bennett's motion ; the original motion to stand. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bennett withdrew it. MR. BENNETT: I withdrew it in accordance with the Chair's suggestion. MR. FISHER: Around here we were voting on Mr. Bennett's motion. THE CHAIRMAN : There is no ob- jection to a motion to reconsider it; that is the only way it can be opened up. MR. FISHER: I move to reconsider the vote on Section 6. THE CHAIRMAN: You vote to re- consider the vote on Section 6. Just a minute. MR. FISHER: Section 5; I beg par- don. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fisher moves to reconsider the vote by which Section 5 was carried. All those in favor say aye; opposed, no. All those in favor signify the same by saying aye; opposed, no. The motion to recon- sider is carried. The Secretary will call the roll upon the motion to strike out Section 5. If the gentlemen will keep their eyes on the indicator, it will save a lot of time. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN : The motion is upon the MR. HUNTER: We are all mixed up. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is upon MR. BENNETT: It is on my motion. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is upon Mr. Rosenthal's motion to strike that section out. MR. BENNETT: Section 5. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, section 5. What you vote on now is Mr. Rosen- thal's motion to strike section 5 out, and the secretary will call the roll on that motion. Yeas — Beebe, Cole, Greenacre, Hoyne, Hunter, Linehan, MacMillan, Michaelis, Owens, Paullin, Pendarvis, Raymer, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Yopicka — 16. Nays — Beilfuss, Bennett, Brosseau, Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eid- mann, Fisher, Guerin, ' Harrison, Lath- rop, McGoorty, McKinley, Merriam, Post, Robins, Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Taylor, Werno, Young — 21. (During roll call.) MR. MACMILLAN: Is this to re- consider? THE CHAIRMAN: This is upon a motion to strike out section 5. MR, MACMILLAN: To strike out? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. MACMILLAN: Aye. MR. BEILFUSS: Mr. Chairman, I desire to change my vote; I vote no. MR. EIDMANN: I change my vote from aye to no. MR, GUERIN: I didn't understand the motion. I want to change my vote. I want to vote no. THE SECRETARY: Doctor Guerin, no; Beilfuss r no; Eidmann, no. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the motion to strike out the yeas are 16, and the noes 21, the motion is lost. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you desire a roll call on No. 6? MR. ROSENTHAL: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: The secretary will call the roll on Mr. Rosenthal's mo- tion to strike out “With streets or alleys intersecting the same," and the last three lines of the same clause, “A map or plat of land sub-divided into lots, without streets or alleys intersect- ing the same, shall not require such ap- proval in order to be recorded." On Mr. Rosenthal's motion to strike out these, you will vote. Yeas — Beilfuss, Greenacre, Hunter, Pendarvis, Raymer, Robins, Rosenthal Nays — Bennett, Cole, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eid- mann, Fisher, Guerin, Harrison, noyne, Lathrop, Linehan, MacMillan, Me- February 25 1098 1907 Goorty, McKinley, Merriam, Michaelis, Post, Shepard, Snow, Yopicka, Zimmer —23. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you going, Mr. Hoyne? MR. HOYNE: I have an important engagement. THE CHAIRMAN: Let us get through with this. This relates to real estate, and we will reconsider the reve- nue act if you don’t sit down. MR. POST: I beg pardon, but I wish to ask what this vote is on. THE CHAIRMAN : The motion is to strike out of section 6 the words, 1 1 With streets or alleys intersecting the same,” and also the words: “ A map or plat of land subdivided into lots, without streets or alleys intersecting the same, shall not require such approval in order to be recorded. MR. POST: I thought that motion had been passed on. I vote no. MR. HUNTER: I desire to be rec- orded as voting aye. THE SECRETARY: How did Gen- eral Young vote? MR. YOUNG: No. MR GUERIN: I desire to vote no. THE CHAIRMAN: Doctor Guerin desires to vote no. MR. BEILFUSS: I desire to vote aye. THE SECRETARY: Beilfuss, aye; Hunter, aye; Guerin, no. THE CHAIRMAN: On this motion, the yeas are 7 and the noes 23, and the motion is carried — the motion to strike out is lost. MR. MACMILLAN : 23 to 7? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR, MACMILLAN: Then I raise the question that we have no quorum. THE CHAIRMAN: Don’t raise that question now; we have got a lot to do. MR. MACMILLAN: Well, if the record will show, — if you will let the record be so that it does not show that we have no quorum, it will be all right, and Mr. Rosenthal will withdraw his motion for a roll call, so the record shall not show that we have less than a quorum present. MR, ROSENTHAL: I don’t care. MR. B. A. ECKHART: Don’t raise that question. MR. MACMILLAN: Let the record show a vote, but no roll call, otherwise the record will show that we have less than a quorum voting on this question, MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I think there is a quorum present. MR. MACMILLAN: No quorum an- swering. MR. FISHER: There is a quorum present. Let the record show. THE SECRETARY: There is a quorum. THE CHAIRMAN: There was a quorum when this assemblage was called to order. MR. FISHER: There is now. THE CHAIRMAN: The secretary advises me that there is a quorum present, and therefore the vote stands as announced. The secretary will pro- ceed with the reading. THE SECRETARY: 6, 7, 8. MR. PENDARYIS: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the second para- graph of section 7. THE CHAIRMAN! The second par- agraph of section 7: “Upon such clos- ing or vacation, the lot or tract of land” — the secretary will read what Mr. Pendarvis wants stricken out; the second paragraph of 7. THE SECRETARY: Page 112, sec- ond paragraph, 14-7: “Upon such clos- ing or vacation the lot or tract of land immediately adjoining on either side of such street, alley or public place, or por- tion thereof, shall extend to the center line thereof, unless otherwise specially provided in the ordinance.” MR. PENDARVIS: Mr. Chairman, February 25 1099 1907 the reason for making that amendment is that the supreme court court has held that that precise language of the statute is absolutely null, — it means nothing. I cannot see why we want to insist upon putting it in the charter when the supreme court has held the language is of no effect. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman, may I say a word or two upon this subject? However the ruling may apply to our existing rights, evidently the drafting committee, as Mr. Fisher has indicated, has considered this with Mr. Wilson and Professor Freund that it will have some benefit in the charter, and it cannot effect a right heretofore existing, but may be of great benefit in the future. MR. GREENACRE: Mr. Chairman, it would be well to drop this, because the effect may be that the ground might go back to the original owner when it was believed that it was going back to the side owners. I don’t think it should be in the charter, — it may be a delusion and a snare. MR. BENNETT: I do not think that is so. There is no delusion or snare. It is a provision which is inserted in the interests of the city, and in the inter- ests of the property owners. MR. GREENACRE: It is of no avail. MR. BENNETT: Under present methods — in the first place, in reference to this supreme court decision we have heard of, we should bear in mind that we have provided that where a man makes a plat subsequent to this act, the fee rests in the city. Now, the prac- tical working of this provision will be that when the city vacates a street the city will be enabled to exact as com- pensation the full value of the land, instead of part of the value which it now gets; the practice today, under the present law is that the city gets only a small compensation, and the man who originally sold out the land and who has parted with all of his interest in the land and who holds this reversionary interest holds onto it until he sees fit to part with it, and that results in the city getting a smaller return in the way of compensation, it puts a club in the hands of the man who has no real interest there to exact money for an interest which is not worth anything to speak of. I think this matter should stand as printed, and I move that it take that course. MR. FISHER: I might just say a few words in answering Mr. Green- acre’s point; I want to call attention to the fact that it would not be any delusion or snare to the abutting prop- erty owner, if he has secured title, if the title has come to him instead of coming to somebody else, and he would not consent to the vacation of the street. The theory of the case is that if it is going to the abutting property owner he is not going to consent so readily, in any event, he is that much better off than he would be otherwise. MR. POST: I would like to ask a question: As I understand it, it is not claimed that this will be retroactive at all? MR. BENNETT: No, no. MR. POST: It seems to me we have provided that where any dedication of streets shall occur the fee simple title shall be in the city. Now, if that is so, why should we proceed to declare if a street is vacated the fee simple should be in the adjoining property owner? MR. BENNETT: The idea is that the city exacts compensation. This is simply transferring title to the adjoin- ing owner; it passes by operation of law. The city don’t want it; there is no excuse for them closing a street where it is needed for public use. MR. ROSENTHAL: I wish to raise my voice iln protest against passing im- portant legislation of this sort to which is attached deep legal significance, and February 25 1100 1907 which may have an important bearing on a great many battles of the city of Chicago in the future in this manner, and it is my hope that we may not act upon it now or act upon anything so important now as this proposition is by voting upon it as matters stand at the present moment. It has never been re- ferred to the law committee for its legal opinion, the law committee has never passed upon it, and yet here we are passing legislation as a matter of fact when we are not sure of what we are doing. Now while it is true that Aider- man Bennett has had a great deal of experience in real estate, he is a real estate man, yet he has not had large experience as a lawyer. What would be the effect if this were to be put through? Suppose when plats are re- quired in the future, that instead of complying with every statutory require- ment, by some little slip made in it, perhaps an acknowledgement not dated, a corner stone may have been omitted, or the number of feet of the plat may have been omitted, or something of that sort, why the effect will be, as the su- preme court has said, that it is not a statutory dedication. All those things, in all those things, the city is acquir- ing no rights, whereas if you have an absolutely statutory dedication we are acquiring rights. Now, it seems to me this convention ought not to go ahead with an important matter of this kind and pass slipshod legislation of this sort and throw the work on the legisla- ture. THE CHAIRMAN: To what section does the gentleman refer? MR. ROSENTHAL: I refer to Sec- tion 27, Part 2. Of course, unfortun- ately, the claim will be made that my argument applies to Section 5, which was voted down; but this is a matter upon which Mr. Kale has worked for some weeks, and he does not even know what the law is, and he has a bill be- fore the legislature at the present time, and here we are, in one hour, in the afternoon, attempting in this slipshod way to transfer title. THE CHAIRMAN: Will the gentle- man confine himself to the discussion of the merits of the question? MR. ROSENTHAL: Yes, sir; that is a part of the merits. THE CHAIRMAN: Confine yourself to what is the legitimate work of the convention. MR. ROSENTHAL: Well, I am a member of the convention, and I refer to myself just as well as the others here, and I think we should eliminate this particular provision; I think Mr. Pen- darvis’ motion ought to carry for that reason. MR. RAYMER: I offer as a substi- tute that Sections 5, 6 and 7 be re- ferred to the law committee. THE CHAIRMAN: Sections 5 and 6 have been passed upon. That requires a reconsideration. MR. RAYMER: I move a reconsid- eration, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: What will be done with it when it goes to the law committee? When is it the intention of this convention to complete its work? MR. RAYMER: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this is a very important matter on which we should have some information from the law committee, or at least, should have some expert opinion. I have not heard anyone on the floor of this convention today justify the action that is contemplated by the passage of these resolutions, or these amendments as printed. I do not believe we can deprive any man of his constitutional rights. I do not pre- tend to be an attorney or know very much about the law, but as it appeals to me, I do not think it is possible. It seems to me this subject should be handled in the way suggested. I think we should get expert opinions from the February 25 1101 1907 law committee on this point before we make fools of ourselves by doing some- thing here which would tend to show that we do not know what we are doing. ME. FISHEK: There is no ambi- guity about this. As a matter of fact, it seems to me the point has been cov- ered by the gentlemen who have spoken. Mr. Eosenthal simply says this, that if this plat is not dedicated according to statute this statute won't apply. That is perfectly true; nobody contro- verts that. Now, if that is true, there is nothing to refer to the law committee. The statute itself — the charter itself says that it don't apply to plats that do not comply with the statute. What is the use of' debating the proposition? There is nothing to refer to the law committee, there is no question in dis- pute here that I can see. Mr. Eosen- thal himself concedes if the plat has been dedicated according to statute it will hold. He says that if the corner stone has been omitted, or the number of feet are not right that some failure may ensue THE CHAIEMAN (interrupting Mr. Fisher): Mr. Young, you are going to break up the quorum here if you leave now. We are going to work a while here yet. ME. YOUNG: I have got to go, Mr. Chairman. I am willing to come back here this evening, I am willing to spend two or three hours tonight here, but I must go now. THE CHAIEMAN: We ought to at- tempt to finish up here. Proceed, Mr. Fisher. ME. FISHEE: I cannot understand what the legal question is that is in doubt. ME. EOSENTHAL: Will the gen- tleman yield to a question? ME. FJSHEB: Certainly, I will, with pleasure. ME. EOSENTHAL: Do you know now, can you say definitely, what the words mean in Section 5, 1 1 except where such plat shall be vacated according to law"? ME. FISHEE: Certainly; that means what it says. There is a statute with regard to the vacation of plats. That is entirely different from the vacation of streets. It is a statute which pro- vides for the vacation of the entire plat. MB. EOSENTHAL: Yes, but this does not say “ entire plat." ME. FISHEE : Well, it relates to the plat or part of plat as a plat, and is effective according to the statute. THE CHAIEMAN: Mr. Hoyne, wait a minute; there are important matters coming up yet. I just wish to say one word to the gentlemen of this conven- tion. This is not my charter, this is your charter. If the gentlemen of this convention are not willing to stay here and complete this work, a resolution ought to be adopted showing that the members of this convention want to abandon it. The members of the gen- eral assembly have to go back to Spring- field — Mr. Eidmann, wait a minute — the members of the general assembly have to go back to their work at Spring- field, and some time pretty' soon this charter is going to be sent down there. The chair and the secretary have been spending all their time trying to get a quorum at this convention, and if the members do not remain how shall we complete the work? ME. SHEPAED: Mr. Chairman, speak- ing just a word on Mr. Baymer's sug- gestion — ME. MAC MILLAN: Before we pro- ceed any further I would like to sug- gest that a motion be made that if we are going to take a recess that we take the recess now before these gentlemen leave, and if we ate going to stay here until this work is finished let us have some expression of that sort. It seems to me that if a motion is made these February 25 1102 1907 gentlemen who have to go to Springfield must go, and the chair has well said that this charter should be in their hands. MR. B. A. ECKHART: I desire to move that a recess be taken now until 7:30 o’clock this evening. THE CHAIRMAN: Make it seven o’clock. MR. POST: I would like to say just a word MR. E ID MANN : Make it eight 0 ’clock. MR. POST: I have been here a great many times and I believe I have per- formed my duties to the best of my ability. I am interested in the educa- tional section, as you all know, and there is another matter that is a vital matter to me, that is a vital matter in determining my attitude on this char- ter, which has not been disposed of yet, and that is the matter that preceded the educational matter, the question of the referendum with regard to giving away public franchises to private corpora- tions. That is an important matter, and it seems to me, that we ought all to be here when that is passed upon. Now, 1 have made an appointment for tonight that I cannot break, and yet I want to be here and vote, and while I am perfectly willing that the rest of the matter may be disposed of, yet it seems to me we ought to have the right to reserve that, and I ask the reservation of that ques- tion. There can be no such rush as all this. I wish to say in addition, Mr. Chair- man, that these matters were not called to the attention of this convention for ten months or so, and then suddenly and all at once matters began to be active and busy, and continued so for a month or so, then there was another lull, and now we are exceedingly busy again. I don’t see where we are going to lose any chance of getting this char- ter through in a reasonable time if we postpone this matter, say until tomor- row. I wish to move that in Article 16, that part of the charter which I have referred to, be reserved for considera- tion, Article 16, and that it be made a special order for the next meeting of the convention on the day we adjourn to from this meeting. MR. MACMILLAN: I move that this convention when it adjourns ad- journs to meet this evening in this place at half past seven o’clock. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion, that when we adjourn, we adjourn to meet again at 7:30 o’clock tonight. MR. FISHER: I move that the roll be called now to find out if we can, how many will be here at 7:30 o’clock to- night, if we adjourn until then. Let us know whether we are to have a quo- rum if we meet here tonight. MR. EIDMANN: Perhaps I can be here, but it will be a little late. MR. POST: If the members of this convention had been here when I was here at ten o ’clock this morning instead of waiting until eleven, and keeping me here wasting my time for over an hour, and if they had come here at half past two as I did, instead of three o’clock, and wasting another half hour, we might have been through without vot- ing any recess. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, Mr. Post, the chair agrees with you on that. MR. G. W. DIXON : Let us have a roll call. THE CHAIRMAN: The secretary will call the roll to ascertain how many members will be here at 7:30 o’clock. Yeas — Baker, Beebe, Bennett, Bros- seau, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eck- hart, J. W., Eidmann, Fisher, Guerin, Harrison, Lathrop, Linehan, MacMillan, McKinley, Merriam, Mich- aelis, Paullin, Rosenthal, Shanahan, February 25 1103 1907 Shepard, Smulski, Snow, Taylor, Vo- picka, Werno, Young — 27. Nays — Beilfuss, Cole, Greenacre, Mc- Goorty, Owens, Post, Raymer, Robins, Zimmer — 9. (During roll call.) MR. BEILFUSS: I have to« attend a ward convention tonight, and it is impossible for me to be here. THE CHAIRMAN: So do I, and I am a candidate. How does the gentle- man vote? MR. BEILFUSS: No. MR. COLE: I am obliged to be ab- sent tonight for the reason that there is sickness in my family, and I cannot be here on that account. MR. GREENACRE: I vote no, but I will be here if you adjourn to that time. MR. POST: I vote no, and I will not be here. MR. SHEPARD: I vote “aye,” and I will be here. MR. WERNO: I can be here at eight o ’clock. MR. YOUNG: I will be here; I vote ave for eight o’clock. MR. ZIMMER: I should like to be here, but I made an appointment that will prevent me from being. I have been here constantly, I do not think I have missed any session of this conven- tion, and I do not like to miss this one tonight, but I have made this appoint- ment and I have to keep it. I vote no. MR. PENDARYIS: I shall be here if there is a session of this convention, although I have had to be out of the city and have not been home since last Tuesday morning. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, twenty-six say they will be here and nine say they won’t. I make twenty-seven that say they will be here. MR. B. A. ECKIIART: There are others that are not here now that will be here this evening. MR. ROBINS: I move that we ad- journ until next Friday morning at ten 0 ’clock. MR. B. A. ECKHART: What is the ruling of the chair on the other vote? THE CHAIRMAN: There is no vote; twentj r -eight said they would be here and nine said they would not be here. MR. POS: I wish to raise this ques- tion, in regard to the motion to adjourn: It is not supposed that you are going to pass this charter in toto before it comes back for final action, is it? You are not going to send it down to the legislature before you do that, are you? 1 for one will vote against the charter until it comes back in its finished form. If it goes back to the committee and comes here completed by next Friday, why that would be in time and we would have it before this convention again. MR. B. A. ECKHART: We can have the whole thing done and have a meet- ing here next Friday, if we complete it now, and we can get it down to Spring- field in time. MR. ROSENTHAL: I rise to a point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the point of order? MR, ROSENTHAL: The point of order is that while it requires a ma- jority of all the members to pass a measure, less than that number can ad- journ from time to time. THE CHAIRMAN: This was not upon a motion to adjourn, unfortun- ately. MR. ROSENTHAL: I move that we adjourn until 7:30 o’clock this even- ing. THE CHAIRMAN: As many as fa- vor that motion, signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. It is carried. And the convention stood adjourned to meet at 7:30 o’clock, p. m., February 23, 1907. February 25 1104 1907 EVENING SESSION 7:30 P. M. MR. MacMILLAN: In order to facilitate business, Mr. Chairman, I move that the calling of the roll be dispensed with and we proceed to busi- ness. THE CHAIRMAN : Very well. Pursuant to recess, we will take up the second paragraph of Section 7, Article XIV. MR. ROSENTHAL: I believe there is a motion pending by Mr. Raymer, to have Sections 5, 6 and 7 referred to the law committee. THE CHAIRMAN : No such motion was put, Mr. Rosenthal. MR. ROSENTHAL: I think it was made. THE CHAIRMAN: No. It would require a motion to reconsider, and that motion was not made; it was not put. The matter is upon the second paragraph of No. 7. Any motion upon that ? MR. ROSENTHAL : Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Pendarvis’ motion is be- fore the house now. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Pen- darvis’ motion is to strike out the sec- ond paragraph of Section 7. MR. FISHER : Didn’t he withdraw that? THE CHAIRMAN: Page 112. AIR. PENDARVIS: Mr. Chairman, just before we adjourned, Mr. Fisher had been speaking to this question and I was on the point of asking him a question relative to Section 7. This sec- tion is so drawn that it covers com- mon law dedication and statutory ded- ication both. No distinction is made so far as this section is concerned, and apparently it is intended to cover any situation that may arise where the city council should vacate the street. That is the objection to this section. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon Mr. Pendarvis’ motion to strike out. Is there any further discussion on this question? MR. BENNETT : Mr. Chairman, strike out what part. THE CHAIRMAN: The second paragraph of the section. All those in favor signify the same by saying “Aye.” Opposed “No.” The motion is lost. Now, Section 8. AIR. ROSENTHAL: Will you permit me to ask — THE CHAIRA1AN : The Chair is under the impression that the vote was distinct enough, but if you wish it shall be gone over again. MR. ROSENTHAL: What I want is: I want to give notice now that I shall move to reconsider, because I want to bring that out at a later time. There are some suggestions that I have in regard to it. THE CHAIRMAN : Very well. Your rights will be preserved. AIR. PENDARVIS: Mr. Chairman, I now move to strike out the second paragraph of Section 2. This paragraph so far as I am ad- vised was not considered at all by the Convention when we went over it, and I would like to have some one explain what the reasons were for inserting that section. It seems to me that it provides a situation that would not be desirable at alL-a situation whereby the board of local improvements could take the position that it could not improve a street until the property owners along that street would be forced to ask an improvement and thereby would be cut off from the 50 per cent as provided by the section. AIR. RAYMER: I agree with Air. Pendarvis in that. This provision was not passed on by the Convention and it seems to me that the people are not February 25 1105 1907 going to be asked to be permitted to spend their money unless the condition of the street would warrant it, and that would be the effect of it if this provision was in here. I second the motion of Mr. Pendarvis to strike those rights out. I want to say by way of explana- tion that the reason why that was put in is this: Since the situation might arise in which the city would not be bound therefore, to carry on the work, of street paving under this 50 per cent minimum requirement; under such cir- cumstances the work of street pave- ment might accidentally come to a standstill. If, under such circumstances, the majority of frontage abuttors could not petition for re-pavement without this 50 per cent quorum that would per- mit them to go ahead with it. It seems to me to be a little bit dangerous to tie this matter up with a 50 per cent requirement for all the future. We might have financial stringencies and be unable to recover the 50 per cent. This provision is found in the laws of most of the cities and the law usually permits, like the New York law, which permits the majority to pe- tition for re-pavement outside of the law. MR. B. A. ECKHART: The ex- planation made by Mr. Merriam after this question was discussed and con- sidered by the committee it was thought proper to permit property owners front- ing on the street if they desired to do so, to pave the street. The majority of the property owners, or all of the property owners may desire at any time to pave a street or in improving a cer- tain street and in case the city had no money to pave a portion, 50 per cent which should be assessed for the public benefit, and I cannot see any harm in permitting property owners, if they so choose and desire to pave the street, to do so. It is no reason why they should not be permitted to do so. MR. LATHROP : I understood there was another matter that might be covered by this. Another objection that was made to this provision was that the subdivisions made out in the country might be paved very inex- pensively, and then after a year or so the property owners would ask for the pavement of the street with granite blocks, asphalt, or something far more costly, and there is no provision that I have discovered in this article guard- ing against that condition, unless it may be this paragraph. MR. BEEBE : It seems to me that this provision would take away the right of a majority of people for tak- ing themselves out from under h, posi- tion whereby the city could pay 50 per cent, and it seems to me this provision might be made in such a way as to cover that by waiving the first clause instead of providing entirely for the ratification of the jury. MR. MERRIAM : I think that is right; it better read that it shall not apply if those rights are waived. I think that would be better. MR. BEEBE: Yes. MR. PENDARVIS: The objection Mr. Lathrop urges does not seem to me as a valid objection because of the question of the nature and the char- acter of the improvement is all with- in the jurisdiction and the authority of the Board of Local Improvements, and they never are under any obliga- tion to put in an improvement which they think is not fit and proper for the locality where it is situated. It seems to me that as drawn, that this provision may in fact almost completely nullify all that we have been discussing at great length and which was finally fixed upon as a suitable provision. THE CHAIRMAN: Anything further? MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman, I February 25 1106 1907 think there is a misapprehension in re- gard to the purpose of this thing. It seems to me the thing is of importance. You are to have 50 per cent and you • would have a situation where the city would not put in an improvement be- cause there was a number of property owners who might prevent the improve- ment being proceeded with, and the city contribute 25 per cent. The work should be proceeded with if only for the purpose of improvement. We should not tie our hands so that we cannot go ahead. This section would be redrafted so that it would not pre- sent these objections. MR. PENDDARVIS : Should not it be charged a percentage? MR. FISHER: I do not think this makes a great deal of difference. The majority would not petition without 50 per cent unless provision for a contribu- tion of 50 per cent is available. The majority of the petitioners would con- sider no petition unless it was clear they would get a contribution from the city. It seems to me that the mat- ter should be referred to the committee for re-drafting, or to the draftsmen, for the purpose of making it and draw- ing it so that it would permit the prop- erty owners, or a majority of the prop- erty owners to petition for a pavement without such contribution. MR. SHEPARD : That is the inten- tion of this. MR. FISHER: That is the inten- tion of this provision. THE CHAIRMAN : Does that meet your views, Mr. Pendarvis? MR. FISHER: Otherwise, I think the point is well taken. MR. BEEBE: It seems to me that the objectionable features of it might be met by this motion : “Provided that the majority of the abutting property owners may waive all or a portion of such contribution by the city.” THE CHAIRMAN: Read it, Mr. Secretary. THE SECRETARY : By Mr. Beebe : “Provided that a majority of the abut- ting property owners may waive all or a portion of such contribution by the city.” THE CHAIRMAN : Does that meet your views, Mr. Pendarvis? MR. PENDARVIS: It does not meet the situation entirely, Mr. Chair- man, but I don’t care to urge my views. Of course, I wish to call attention to the situation, but I do not waive my right to ask for a reason for inserting the provision as it was not considered when we went over the question and the adoption of the principle. But I still am of the opinion that it would be just as well not to adopt the pro- vision at all. MR. RAYMER: Mr. Chairman— MR. B. A. ECKHART : In case the city has money to pay the 50 per cent for any improvement that may be de- sired, in such instance the property owners should be permitted to pave the street if they wish to do so. MR. GREENACRE : In the coun- try roads, this position comes up quite often. They have a law there that un- der the Roads and Bridges Act it pro- vides for property owners in such cases. ‘I make no motion, but I make that suggestion, that you will find something by which they provide for that in the country under a section of the Road and Bridges Act. MR. RAYMER: I want to ask a question, Mr. Chairman, in regard to this matter : Supposing that the minor- ity of the property owners on the street refuse to waive their rights which is guaranteed to them in the previous clause of this section ; I would like to have that question answered. MR. GREENACRE : Under the country provision, they can be com- pelled to waive it. That is what I want February 25 1107 1907 to lay before you. Those who want the road paved can chip in something and the highway commissioners are allowed to chip in. That is the way it is done in the country. I don’t know if it is applicable to the city or not. I merely make the suggestion. MR. RAYMER: I don’t know whether we can force them to do so in this case. MR. GREENACRE : You can force them there. MR. RAYMER: It would make the burden fall very heavily upon the prop- erty owners. THE CHAIRMAN : Are you ready for the question? The proposition is that the drafting committee be asked to reconsider this section in conformity with the amendment of Mr. Beebe and the suggestion of Mr. Fisher. As many as favor that proposition say “aye.” Opposed “no.” Carried. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, I have something in regard to the same section ; in the sixth line of the first paragraph ; I ask to have these words inserted, and I wish to say a word on them. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will read it. THE SECRETARY. By Mr. Rosen- thal : “If done within ten years of the time of the former paving.” MR. ROSENTHAL: The object of that, Mr. Chairman, is this : We are tying up our hands forever as far as repaving is concerned. The complaint is made now that we have not enough money with which to do our municipal work ; and we are asking contributions for this special purpose in regard to certain portions of the city. We know that in the course of ten years the pavements are absolutely worn out so that the street is in the same condition as it was when it was originally paved. Now, that street cannot be repaved un- less 50 per cent of the cost is paid by the city. That seems to me to be inequitable, and if in the case of the original pavement part of the cost was then charged to the property owners, we should make some provision for it at the end of a certain period of time ; when that has elapsed, say, ten years or a longer period, that we shall spread the entire cost, which can be taxed just as the original assessment. That will reach the evil we aim at, and it seems to me we should not tie our hands in this manner. MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the principle is ex- actly opposite ; the correct principle is the exact opposite of what Mr. Rosen- thal has stated. Mr. Lathrop has al- ready pointed out the situation where the property owners will put in a cheap pavement. Now, as the matter now stands a cedar block pavement may be put in, and we lay such pavements, or an easier and cheap macadam pave- ment, and we do a lot of that, that is worn out in a little while and then comes a necessity for asphalt or even some more expensive pavement, and this city pays half of it. Now, as a matter of fact, the man who is entitled to have the city contribute to this pave- ment is the man who has paid for the permanent and more costly form of im- provement. As a matter of fact, under the suggestion made by Mr. Rosenthal, the man who has paid in full for a gran- ite block pavement that lasts longer than ten years, for which the life is fifteen or twenty years, that that man cannot get any contribution from the city. When they come to lay the sec- ond granite pavement. Now, the man who lays a cheap pavement, rather than the man who lays the expensive one, gets half of the expenses. That is con- verse to the correct principle. If there is a differentiation it should be made in exactly the other way. The second pavement is the second improvement February 25 1108 1907 and it may not have lived ten years, and we should consider some such scheme as that. MR. ROSENTHAL: Will you let me ask a question? MR. FISHER: Certainly. MR. ROSENTHAL : Is it not a fact that the man who pays for the more expensive pavement will get the great- est improvement ? MR. FISHER: Yes, and he pays for it. Here is the situation : It is practically offering a^ premium to go and put in a cheap pavement, because it will soon wear out rather than to put in an ex- pensive pavement of which the city will pay half the costs. Whereas if a man puts . in a good pavement lasting ten, twelve or fifteen years, he gets no con- tribution from the city when the second pavement hereafter comes to be laid. That does not seem to be wise public policy. Personally I was not present at the time when this percentage was adopted, and if it were proper, if we had a proper attendance here so that the en- tire Convention could vote upon it, and we would not be taking a snap judgment on the others, it seems to me that the percentage should be reduced materially, and may be increased hereafter. We should adopt this policy of some grad- uated scale instead of going at once into a large expense MR. ROSENTHAL: Will you yield to another question ? MR. FISHER: Yes, sir. MR. ROSENTHAL: Don’t you think there would be a greater in- centive if you were to have a cheap pavement put down the first time, wouldn’t there be a greater incentive for the property owner to do that the first time, because he has to pay for it entirely, whereas in five years he will get a more permanent pavement to- wards which the city will pay a sub- stantial part? Wouldn’t that work the other way? MR. FISHER: I think if you put the time limit on it that you speak of, I think it would; I think the city should not contribute to the cost of the sec- ond pavement unless it is laid more than ten years after the laying of the first. MR. ROSENTHAL: That is it ex- actly. MR. FISHER: I did not so under- stand that that was the proposition you made. MR. ROSENTHAL: Well, then, you did not understand me, Mr. Fisher. MR. FISHER: Well, I probably did misunderstand you, if that is the case. MR. BEEBE : I want to say this, if there is any provision in this charter that is popular, this is it; there is no other provision in this charter I have found more popular than this one, pro- viding for an increase of taxation, and among the property owners I find this provision is very satisfactory, it is a most popular one, probably the most popular one, in the charter, and I should like to see it stay. MR. RINAKER: Will the Secre- tary please read the section with the amendment in? THE CHAIRMAN : The Secretary will read the section with the amend- ment inserted. THE SECRETARY: At page 113, Article XV, Section 2, as amended by Mr. Rosenthal : “Whenever a street or alley shall have been paved after the passage of this act by the general assembly, and a special assessment or special tax there- fore shall have been confirmed, and such special assessment or tax, or if divided into installments, the first installment shall have been certified for cellection, not more than fifty per cent of the cost of repaving such street or alley at any future time if done within ten years February 25 1109 1907 of the time of the former paving) shall be imposed upon property owners by special assessment or special taxation. THE CHAIRMAN : Are you ready for the question? MR. FISHER: I think that is proper if done within ten years, it says. MR. ROSENTHAL: I will word it the other way and accept your amend- ment. MR. MERRIAM : I think this would be a great mistake to put this in there as suggested either by Mr. Rosenthal or Mr. Fisher. This is in part needed as a compromise, by which we raise the tax rate and also take care of the street paving. Now, if we are going to put a ten-year limit in here it may put the operation of the act so that per- haps in fifteen years, say, the property owners will get no relief at all im- mediately, and but postpone it for half a generation, which I think is no relief at all. MR. BENNETT : I agree with Prof. Merriam as to what he said, and I move that that section stand as printed. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard Mr. Bennett’s motion, that the section stand as printed. As many as favor that motion will signify by saying, aye. Opposed, no. MR. MERRIAM : I call for a rising vote. THE CHAIRMAN : All those in favor will please rise. All those op- posed will rise. Aid. Bennett’s motion is carried. MR. SHEPARD: I rise to offer an amendment, and I do it with Mr. Ben- nett’s consent, and I presume it does not conflict with his motion, namely, to strike out, commencing with the word “the” in the first line, the fol- lowing: “The passage of this by the general assembly,” and insert in lieu thereof “after this act shall take effect and become operative.”* That is not a minor matter, but it is a very vital matter, when you come to figure the matter out as to the cost of the whole thing. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shepard’s motion is to make the time after this is passed and when it becomes operative, instead of after its adoption by the legislature. MR. SHEPARD : I can see that this is one of the things that is just as you mentioned awhile ago, is a part of the whole section, it is a part of the increased taxes ; now, it is unfair to say that this part shall take effect immediately on the passage of the act by the general assembly, and then, per- haps have the whole act fall when it is voted on by the people. You do not have a revenue. Now, it seems to me, the whole charter should go altogether and be- come the language of the charter itself, the last clause to take effect, and be- come operative. The language any- how is bad ; if the general assembly is (going to pass it, I think this clause should take effect, as the other clauses do when the act fairly takes effect and becomes operative. MR. FISHER: I think Mr. Shepard will admit he is wrong, for this rea- son : You will at once stop all street improvements until the act is all com- pleted, and you will tie up everything here so that no one will want to do anything. The man will know if he waits he will get the benefit of this 50 per cent, and if not then, he will wait for the second time. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? MR. G. W. DIXON: Question. THE CHAIRMAN : As many as favor Mr. Shepard’s motion will sig- nify by saying, aye. Opposed, no. MR. RINAKER: I am not just clear as to the effect of Aid. Bennett’s mo- tion which was adopted a moment ago. February 25 1110 1907 Did he mean we adopt this section as printed, or did he mean that we adopt this section as amended by Mr. Beebe’s amendment? THE CHAIRMAN : The amend- j ment of Mr. Bennett was that the sec- j ond paragraph of Section 2 of Article i XV be adopted as printed. MR. RINAKER: The first para- graph ? THE CHAIRMAN : The first para- graph, I beg your pardon. MR. RINAKER: Then Mr. Beebe’s amendment stands? THE CHAIRMAN : Yes. MR. VOPICKA: I have an amend- ment to offer in connection with this local improvement act. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Vopicka has an amendment. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Vo- picka : '‘Whenever the making of a local improvement requires the exercise of the right of eminent domain and the levying of an assessment for the payment of compensation to the own- ers of private property to be taken or damaged for said improvement, such assessment may at the discretion of the City Council be made payable in one sum or in such annual installments, not to exceed twenty, as the said City Council may, in the ordinance for the making of such improvement and the levying of such assessment, provide, and bonds may be issued to anticipate the collection of such assessment in like manner, as near as may be, as provided by law for the issuance of bonds to anticipate the collection of special as- sessments levied for the payment of the cost of local improvements which do not involve the exercise of the right of eminent domain. Bonds issued for the purpose of anticipating the collec- tion of an assessment to pay the com- pensation so awarded to the owner of property so taken or damaged, may be sold by the city at not less than the par value thereof, and the city may guarantee the prompt payment at ma- turity of such bonds and interest.” MR. VOPICKA: Mr. Chairman, I wish to explain the resolution just of- fered. This resolution is offered for this purpose: In case large improve- ments are to be made in the City of Chicago, like the opening or widening of a street, in these cases they gen- erally assess from 25 to 50 per cent, and of course the city has no money for that purpose; then, unless there is a certain article in this charter in regard to that, the city can never make these large improvements which are so neces- sary in this city. Suppose a street should be widened and the assessment should be for about $500.00; the city would pay about $100.00 out of the assessment for pub- lic benefit. Now, as everybody knows the city usually has no money for that purpose, and I do not think the city will ever have any surplus in its treas- ury to use for that purpose. Now, if the city should be authorized to issue bonds for this purpose in ad- vance, the property can be condemned and . the improvement can be ac- complished. Now, this is absolutely es- sential to this charter. If we are go- ing to make lots of improvements, such as dividing streets, widening streets and so forth, unless we have something of this kind in the charter, we cannot think of making improvements of that kind. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of the resolution. MR. GREENACRE: What is the necessity of having the city guarantee the bonds? MR. VOPICKA: Because you can- not dispose of them unless they are guaranteed. MR. ROSENTHAL: In answer to Mr. Greenacre’s question, I might say that the city would be liable for the condemnation money, and it would be February 25 1111 1907 another form of changing this liability. The city becomes the guarantor of the bonds instead of having to pay the con- demnation money. MR. FISHER: This is a radical de- parture from the present situation in regard to special assessments. We might as well understand this before the vote is entered upon. At the present time the city cannot divide into install- ments the special assessments on any improvement which involves the con- demnation of property. The very pur- pose which Mr. Vopicka has in mind, which he advocates in cases of this kind, where there are required improvements to be made that cost a great deal of money, such as the widening of Halsted street and matters of that kind, where property owners hold back because of the very large initial cost. It is a very excellent idea to divide that cost into annual installments if it can be done ; but under the existing law the city cannot become a guarantor of special assess- ments, and the contractor who takes bonds or warrants under special assess- ments now takes them at his own risk. In the matter of supplemental assess- ments, then it may be that it acts merely as trustee, the city does, as between the property owners' on the one hand and the contractors on the other. In this proposed case you are going to make the City of Chicago absolutely liable financially, and you are doing it under the form of this amendment in advance of having any definite knowl- edge that the assessment is going to be sustained. It seems to me that our present safeguard in regard to special assessments is automatic, and it has been shown to be sufficient ; the con- tractor takes all the risk. The city goes ahead and makes certain improve- ments and levies special assessments, and if it does not collect the money the contractor is out and not the city. It seems to me this is a very dan- J gerous experiment to start out by mak- ing the city guarantee these bonds. There should be some limitation put in the law under which there should be a final confirmation of these assess- ments, and we could get to a point then where it might not be successfully at- tacked in the courts. But that is not the case now, because in a number of these cases, successful attacks have been made upon subsequent installments for special assessments, through some technicality, or spme error or other- wise, and the city may be put to a con- siderable expense, and it will interfere at once with the tax limits. MR. ROSENTHAL: I just want to ask Mr. Fisher one question, if the confirmation of the assessment in the court — if after the confirmation any at- tack can be made upon the bonds? MR. FISHER: Yes, attacks have been made and made successfully on subsequent installments where it is di- vided into several installments, by some person. I have known of cases per- sonally of that kind. MR. ROSENTHAL: Not under the recent decisions of the Supreme Court, I do not think it can be done now un- der the law. MR. FISHER : The Supreme Court has held so, it is true, unless the ques- tion is raised as to the jurisdiction; but there are a'number of cases, a num- ber of kinds of cases where that can be raised, and where it can be very much reduced from what they were under the former law, and I think it would be a very rash statement to say absolutely, to assert with absolute assurance that after the confirmation of the first in- stallment you could not successfully at- tack the others. I think some cases will arise where you can. MR. SNOW : It seems to me there is another feature of the proposition as submitted here by Mr. Vopicka that would be a very dangerous one, if the February 25 1112 1907 city is to guarantee these special assess- ment bonds, and that is that those bonds would become a part of the reg- ular bond indebtedness of the City of Chicago, and our limit of indebtedness would very soon be reached, with the amount of paving the amount of special bonds which would have to be issued of that character, it would be only a matter of a year and a half or two years until the indebtedness’ limit would be reached. MR. VOPICKA : In answer to that, I would like to say that so far as pav- ing the streets is concerned that for the last ten years there has been no im- provement of any size made in the City of Chicago for the reason that there was no money in the treasury for the public benefit. If these bonds are issued and guaranteed by the City of Chicago, every year a certain amount of money will be paid toward those bonds, and they will not be like the bonds Mr. Snow refers to because they are the bonds of the City of Chicago, and will have to be paid for these im- provements mentioned — they will have to pay for these improvements anyway, and you have to pay cash for them, and that could be done from general taxa- tion. If we do not adopt this, gentlemen, you cannot get any large improvements in the City of Chicago for the next ten years. I have not reference to any special matter at this time, but I think it is absolutely necessary that you make the proper provision for the North Side and the South Side and the West Side ; you have to connect those streets ; you have to open some and widen others, and unless you have a pro- vision of this kind in the charter, you will never accomplish anything in that line. I believe that this talk about danger is absolutely out of place. You don’t have to take into consideration any of those things, because the bonds can be provided for in the budget every year and they will be paid for in less than no time, and the taxpayers won’t feel it, and I feel sure that you can ac- complish it in that way. MR. GREENACRE: To divide the issue, I move as an amendment to the pending amendment to strike out the words that make the city a guarantor of the bonds; I am in favor of the rest of it, but I am not in favor of that, and that is my reason for offering the amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Greenacre moves to strike out that portion of the resolution which relates to the guar- anteeing of the bonds by the city. MR. B. A. ECKHART: I think that the proposition is a notorious one, and ought to be considered on its merits, and to strike out that portion of the resolution referred to by the gentleman will be to kill the proposition ; there will be nothing left to it in my judg- ment if you strike that out. It appears to me that it is a proposi- tion which will enable a great many very worthy improvements to be made. There may be some little objection to it in its present form, and it may have to be re-written^ but to strike out that portion that Mr. Greenacre moves to strike out will be to strike out the enactment clause of the bill; it will have the same effect. I think this whole matter should be left to the Commit- tee on Rules, Procedure and General Plan. THE CHAIRMAN : The Conven- tion had better decide upon the ques- tion of policy first. MR. SHEPARD: It seems to me that it is wise to adopt the principle involved. We do not adopt the letter of this resolution if we do that; but this is a matter that has been before the Convention for a long time, and Mr. Vopicka has introduced the proposi- February 25 1113 1907 tion or the principle very early in the deliberation of this Convention, and has spoken on it. It does have, it seems to me, great merit. This draft has been prepared as I understand it by Major Tolman and others, and we can adopt it with perfect safety it seems to me, that is, we can adopt the prin- ciple involved in this, and if they desire more properly to hedge it about or change the letter of the draft, they can do that without any re-reference to this Convention. I support the motion of Brother Vo- picka assuming that the drafter, es- pecially those interested in this, Major Tolman and others, Professor Freund, will look it over very carefully and re- port to the Committee on Plans and Procedure. THE CHAIRMAN : The first ques- tion is upon Mr. Greenacre’s motion to strike out. MR. ROBINS: A question of in- formation : I want to know whether if this resolution is adopted, and bonds are issued, they come within the bond limitation or debt limitation of the city? THE CHAIRMAN : Whether it will affect it? MR. ROBINS: Yes, sir. MR. FISHER: Oh, it will, beyond a question. •MR. SHEPARD: In answer to that I respectfully suggest that the claims against the property owners under the special assessment would be a set-off for the bonds pro tanto for the bonds guar- anteed by the city? MR. ROSENTHAL: Well, let us see — MR. BENNETT: That would be the effect, when it was worked out, if the money was collected ; but from the mo- ment that the city guarantees those bonds the amount would be a charge against the debt limit ; it would reduce the power to issue bonds by that amount. There is one question that comes to my mind at this time, and that is whether we could guarantee these bonds without a referendum on the bond question. Under the charter we would have to have a referendum vote on it in order to issue these bonds. MR. ROSENTHAL: As a substi- tute for all the pending motions I move that the whole matter be referred to the Committee on General Plans, because it is a matter that will have to be threshed out in the Committee and we can rely on them to work out the de- tails of it. * MR. ROBINS: I hope that the prin- ciple will not be adopted. As I under- stand the proposals now of the revenue committee, the building of school build- ings in the future, it is proposed by the Convention that the buildings shall be taken care of by bond issue ; that will amount to two and a half to three millions increase every year, three to four million dollars a year. If these improvement bonds are to become a part of the debt limit of the city, it seems to me we are in danger. This matter of the building of schools in the city by a bond issue is a serious question, because there is no adequate provision otherwise, and I am opposed to this proposal, to the adoption of this proposal, upon principle until it has been thoroughly discussed by this Conven- tion. Some of us have not had the chance to look deeply enough into it, that I think we should have before it is passed. I move that it be referred to the Committee on Rules, Procedure and General Plans and returned to the Con- vention for adoption. THE CHAIRMAN : The question is now upon Mr. Rosenthal’s substitute for the whole matter, that it be referred to the Committee. MR. FISHER: That carries with it the proposition of the approval of the suggestion. I don’t know how far that goes. I suppose if the committee re- February 25 1114 1907 ports back to the Convention we will all know about it and have a chance to discuss it after it shall have been re- ferred back. I have no objection to that. I want to call the attention of the Convention to the fact that this does not limit the guaranteeing of these bonds until a certain period of time after the assessment has been confirmed ; under the present form in which it is drawn, the bonds can be issued in an- ticipation of the collection before the assessment has been confirmed by the court. That is one illustration that 4 want to call your attention to. MR. B. A. ECKHART : That can be discussed before the Committee. Mr. Chairman, I think, the motion should be considered by the Committee cover- ing all, the suggestions that have been made, and reconsidered by the Conven- tion. THE CHAIRMAN : All those in favor of referring it to the Committee signify the same by saying, aye. Those opposed, no. So ordered. Carried. Go on. THE SECRETARY: Page 113; 15—3, 4, 5. Page 115. MR. FISHER : Before we leave this subject of local improvements, Mr. Chairman, there is a matter, it seems to me we. should take some action on. I am not entirely clear as to just ex- actly what form the action should take, and I have had but little time in which to investigate it; but I have attempted to investigate it as far as possible, and that is : The question of patented pave- ment. There is no provision in the present law, and the Supreme Court has held that a patented pavement can- not be adopted, which has knocked out the brick pavement which is coming into favor. I have no interest in bit- ulithic pavement, and have no knowl- edge of it outside of the fact that there are a good many friends, some of them entirely disinterested, and some of them interested, and among others people who have been engaged in paving some of the parks who have given informa- tion about it, I think Mr. Eckhart and others. Some of them believe, and I understand that it is practically con- ceded to be the best pavement that can be obtained, that it can be worn very serviceably. That is to say in certain classes of street on which some form of pavement must be adopted, it would be more satisfactory than the present form. It seems to me that some method should be found of permitting the use of that sort of article. I understand it has been used very extensively in St. Louis and many eastern cities. It is a macadam pavement with a binding material of an asphaltic nature. It is quite satisfying, and the present form which is known as bitulithic may be succeeded by something else ; by a pave- ment of that character or any other character upon which the owners may have a good device, or composition, on which they may get patent. Such a form of patent as that may be extremely de- sirable to use. Now, this is a matter after it was called to my attention and the subject was discussed with me in the committee I thought it was discussed unsatisfactorily, and it was referred for the purpose of attempting to have some provision made. I went a little further into it so as to get some prices and other things. I have in my hand a kind of brief and argument of a case which went up from the city of Evan- ston, in which opinion Judge Carter, now of the Supreme Court, — in which his opinion is quoted in full— in which he reviewed the different subjects at length. It certainly makes a very strong case for the makers of that pave- ment. Now, there is no provision un- der the present law and none in this charter. We all know that the asphalt pavements are in the hands of a very February 25 1115 1J07 few individuals, and certainly are held very strongly so that the asphalt peo- ple practically have a 'monopoly. It seems to me that we should get any better pavement which comes in and that we should make some provision whereby we should have the opportunity to do so. Now, I care nothing about it personally, but it seems to me we should not be prevented from having the opportunity of putting in that kind of a pavement under proper safeguards. I would like to propose, as another sec- tion, you might call it, as an additional section to this article, something which I would like to have read. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Fisher: "Proposed provision for the Chicago Charter which relates to the use of patented articles by the city.” An ordinance for any public improve- ment, to be paid for by special assess- ment or otherwise, may provide for the use of any article, material or process covered by letters patent granted by the United States Government, provided the owner or owners of such patent rights shall, before the passage of any such ordinance, agree in writing to allow the use of such patent rights and sell such patented article, material or process at a stated price, either to the City, or to any contractor to whom a contract may be awarded for doing such work; but no ordinance shall be adopted for a pat- ented pavement unless a majority of property owners owning property abut- ting on any street proposed to be im- proved shall petition for the same. MR. MERRIAM : One day when Mr. Fisher was unfortunately not pres- ent in the sub-committee this matter was more thoroughly gone into than on the day when he was present. The representatives of this bitulithic pavement were present and also the other companies, and had a very long and quite a very interesting discussion of the matter. It seems that Warren Brothers are unwilling to agree to the bids on what they call open specifications, saying that their pavement calls for a maximum of density. It appeared before the Committee that they do not want to bid on these speci- fications. It appears that the bitulithic pavement either is patented, or the ma- chinery that makes it is patented, the machinery that produces it in this form. On the other hand, if you adopt an amendment of the fashion of which Mr. Fisher has proposed, you will stop the people from getting any benefit from any lower price. It gives these people a monopoly of that pavement, and, of course, if the property owners want the bitulithic pavement, they will have to take it from these people at the price they set. Of course, we know in many other cases that the city buys patented articles. They are buying fire engines that are patented, are they not, and described accurately, specifications which really call for a certain machine. But in the case of pavements they apparently try to simply secure the result. One bid seems to call for the bitulithic pavement, un- less the bids are on open specifications, and it has been the policy of the bitu- lithic people not to bid on these; and, if you make a resolution of this kind you will never get anything but a monopoly price on that kind of pave- ment. MR. FISHER : I do not wish to dis- cuss the matter if any other member wishes to talk upon it, but the objec- tions raised by Mr. Merriam were men- tioned to me. I agree entirely, if you force the owner of this patented ma- chinery, or the patent itself, to throw it open that that would be quite a de- sirable way to handle it ; but it seems to me that none of the objections go to the merits of this proposition at all February 25 1116 1907 The whole question will adjust itself. The proposition is a very simple one. The owners of the patents which re- late to the manufacture of this street pavement think they are entitled to the benefit of their ingenuity and skill in de- vising this machinery, and the method of laying this pavement. They claim if you attempt to describe the pavement, and not have it made by their machinery, the machinery that they make, you will not get the right pavement and they say that the pavements which have been laid under those circumstances have been very unsatisfactory, therefore, they will not bid, because the asphalt people or some one comes in and bids on the specifications which simply provides that there shall be stone of a certain size and quality used and laid in a certain manner. They claim you do not get the results, and they are unwilling to go into that competition, because they are underbid and inferior work is done, and they are discredited. Now, if that is so and they will not bid, there is no way the public can compel them to sell unless they wish to do so. The question of price will take care of itself. Unless this pavement, at the price they are willing to sell it at, made with their machinery, is either lower m cost or superior in quality than that of the competition in contact with which it is brought, of course, the property owners would not petition for it and the city would not use it. Now, sup- pose you can lay an asphalt pavement for $2.00 a yard and this would cost you $3.00 a yard, the $3.00 may be a higher price than necessary, but if you can get a better job done for the $3.00 than you can for the $2.00, why not have it? If the majority of the resident property owners are willing to petition for it and pay for it, and if the public authorities of the city believe it is better pavement why not adopt it and leave it open so that it can be used? If the price is so high that it would not be adopted by the property owners or the authorities, this would cover that point. I understand from the people who have used it, that it has been experi- mented with and investigated elsewhere, and everybody who has investigated this pavement is quite enthusiastic over it; it has many qualities, apparently over the asphalt pavement, when properly laid. I do not know whether the price is higher or not. If it is lower than the other, why not have it done, so that the property owner can have it if he wants to ? For the life of me I cannot see why you should not. MR. PENDARVIS : I should like to ask Mr. Fisher one or two questions : Would this resolution, Mr. Fisher, you think, do away with the objections raised by the Supreme Court as to the use of such a pavement? MR. FISHER: Well, I have not in- vestigated those authorities. I have sim- plv looked through the briefs of the at- torneys who have had those cases on behalf of the people that lay this pave- ment. Whether it would or not I do not know, because I have not made any sort of an investigation ;but this is sim- ply as the result of a conference which I sought with the purpose of getting some light on this subject. I talked with Mr. Lathrop about it, and he knows something about it; and I talked with Mr. Eckhart about it and he knows something about it, and wherever I have talked about it it is thought to be a superior pavement; if so, I think we ought to be able to use it. The at- torney for the paving company said he thought this would meet the law, so that they could do business under it. MR. PENDARVIS : In one case the parties offered to furnish the materials at the price that you mentioned, but the Supreme Court held that did not meet the difficulty. MR. FISHER: They had not given February 25 1117 1907 the City of Chicago, or the municipality, or whatever it was, the right to make that price. They tried to fix up their rival afterward, for that sort of a propo- sition, and it did not help them out. This throws the right upon any con- tractor, and they used their machinery and get the pavement and lay it. Whether that meets the law or not, I do not know. MR. VOPICKA: It seems to me this experience would be very expensive to the people and the taxpayers in gen- eral, because it must be given out by contractors. If you do this sort of thing every man will get a patent on these matters. It seems to me ridiculous to put such a sort of thing in the charter, and I think it is dangerous. If you ad- vertise for bids with a certain material, and if only one man has got that ma- terial, how can you put that in there? If you get only one bid the question is whether they will accept the bid or not. Now, you know what it means ; if I am a member of the board and a bid comes in on certain work on one job, and you are unable to get more than one, why, then, that is a trust; there would be no limitation. I hope the amendment will not prevail. THE CHAIRMAN : This is Mr. Fisher’s resolution : MR. ROSENTHAL: May we have it read? THE CHAIRMAN: Let the secre- tary read it again. The secretary read the resolution as hereinbefore printed. MR. ROSENTHAL: I think the word “resident” ought to come out of this resolution. MR. FISHER: I do not care about that. MR. ROSENTHAL: Do you con- sent to have that word stricken out? MR. FISHER: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: What word is that? MR. ROSENTHAL: The word “resident” in there. MR. LATHROP: I have no opinion to express in regard to the questions at issue, but I should like to say a word about the desirability of some measure which would enable, for instance, such a city as this to use this article. I have been studying pavement for years in some other cities, and the great diffi- culty at present is to discover a pave- ment for parkways and the boulevards, which will not in the course of a few months be destroyed by automobiles. The experience of Michigan avenue is, as Mr. Foster tells me, this: The street had to be paved formerly once in two years, and it now has to be resurfaced four times in every two years.; in other words, the streets and the boulevards used by automobiles will hardly last six months. Asphalt pavements are very perishable. Prof. Dow of Washington told me that he had almost abandoned, and had almost made up his mind to use them no more. An asphalt pavement will crumble away to pieces in six years. An asphalt pavement is also slippery. Now, the experience of S’t. Louis, Bos- ton and many other cities that a pave- ment made as this bitulithic pavement is, with tar or asphalt — oh, no, with tar or pitch — not asphalt — is as far as expe- rience has gone almost imperishable. I would like to cite* one illustration ; in Washington, a new street about 400 feet in length was paved by something of this nature over thirty-five years ago. \ Within two months I have examined what was left of that pavement. It was patched with asphalt, but sections of that pavement are perfectly hard and firm and smooth to-day, after having lain there for over thirty-five years. I have been in correspondence with the road bureau in Washington in re- gard to some substitute for this pave- ment. So far they have not hit on any device, but I hope some will be found ; February 25 1118 1907 but, if there is any legal method by which the park commissioners of the City of Chicago can be given the privi- lege of adopting a pavement of this kind — we know what the other pavements cost; it is not a question of cost, we know; within a short range of price — any authority that will enable them to adopt it is much better than all others, and I think it would be beneficial to the city and to the park. MR. HOYNE : I am surprised at Brother Fisher coming into this Conven- tion and trying to institute such an in- novation. There is nothing that will prevent the property owners from hav- ing this if they want it. They can lay it themselves, and if the property own- ers want that improvement there is nothing to prevent them from having it. There is another thing, talking about the automobiles. They use the boule- vards. Is there anything in the act preventing them from using these pave- ments ? I do not know of anything. The question of the property owners you may make it in every block, or you may make it for a mile. MR. FISHER: The question of the mile can be made as stringent as you want. There is in the law to-day a pro- vision under which the property owners can take over a contract and lay the pavement. They say that is the way to get at that if you want to get at it, but, as a matter of fact, they have got prac- tically to get the unanimous consent, or present the pavement gratis to the man who will not join. There . are nearly always enough of non-residents or peo- ple who wont chip in, who think they will win by staying out, to defeat that plan. I agree with Mr. Lathrop that almost anything that will permit the property owners to have this laid under any practical plan should be in there. MR. MERRIAM: This bitulithic pavement is being used in St. Louis, isn’t it? MR. FISHER: I understand so. MR. MERRIAM: Under what terms and conditions do they lay it there? Do they bid under specifications? MR. FISHER: I don’t know. MR. MERRIAM: It would be of in- terest and worth time to find out. MR. FISHER: I have inquired and discovered in quite a number of the states they lay it under the federal law, but many of the state laws are similar to ours, and have decided that you cannot put it up but our supreme court has held the other way. Now, it is a question on this point, between the asphalt trust and the bitu- lithic monopoly. I do not think that there is any difference between the two, I do think that they should be allowed to compete on the quality, and the man with a better article should be permitted to compete with any man, if he has a superior article. MR. MERRIAM: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the real question is who ought to yield; whether they should yield under the point of the specifications or whether we are bound to yield. It is a question of who should yield; whether the city should yield to them or not. It is a suitable principle this recognizing of a patent. MR. ROSENTHAL: I have an amendment which I have just sent to the desk which I believe covers the point made by Professor Merriam and the original suggestion of Mr. Fisher. I hope it will be acceptable to Mr. Fisher. I think in the amended power an ordinance should be passed to allow of wider latitude as a matter of convenience. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secre- tary will read the amendment. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Rosenthal; provided that in all cases the owner or owners of any such pa- tented pavement or article shall be- February 25 1119 1907 fore any such ordinance is passed be required by the Board of Local Im- provements to make a bid for such pavement or improvement upon writ- ten or printed specifications to be prepared under the direction of such board. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal moves the adoption of that amend- ment. MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman, I confess I do not understand where this is to come in. Is that a substi- tute? MR. ROSENTHAL: No, that is an addition. MR. FISHER: An additional pro- viso? MR. ROSENTHAL: Yes, an ad- ditional proviso to that section. MR. FISHER: As an additional proviso I don’t know that I object to it. MR. SNOW: I would like to ask Air. Rosenthal what is gained by that provision. MR. ROSENTHAL: I introduced that to cover the suggestion by Pro- fessor Merriam before any ordinance is passed. It will develop a certain willingness on the part of the own- ers; in other words, it is a sort of an incentive to get their prices down to the lowest bidder. We know what is the cost and they know it will have to come to a certain figure in order to have the ordinance passed. MR. SNOW: Now, Mr. Chair- man, it is the property owners who are interested in knowing what the cost is and projects can be discussed at the last hearing prior to the pas- sage of the ordinance at the public hearing. Now, if people are going to be bound to present prices prior to the passage of the ordinance the property owners in making their deci- sion can say whether they want it or not. There is another thing, Mr. Presi- dent, that I want to speak to while I am on my feet. I want to call at- tention to this bitulithic pavement question and its use in Chicago. It was in paving a street in the ward in which I in part represent in the coun- cil because I was very desirous of having that pavement laid. I investi- gated it wherever it has been laid in other cities and I found it gave very desirable results, and that it was a very desirable form of pavement. But I have been assured by those who represent the company here that the pavement could be laid under open specifications if they desired; and that being so, I do not believe that this convention would be wise in pro- viding for a law on that or any other form of pavement as a patented article. If the specifications can be drawn, and I am assured that they can be drawn, that the pavement can be secured of the same character as will be secured under laying one under the name of a bitulithic pave- ment then certainly it should be laid under open specification in order that a patent may be had in bidding for the privilege of laying. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? MR. SHANAHAN: Question. THE CHAIRMAN: As many as favor the amendment offered by Mr. Rosenthal to Mr. Fisher’s motion will signify the same by saying “aye.” Opposed “no.” It is lost. The ques- tion reverts upon Mr. Fisher’s reso- lution. All those in favor signify the same by saying “aye.” Opposed “no.” Lost. Proceed. THE SECRETARY: Page 113. MR. EIDMANN: Have we passed Section 15? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. EIDMANN: I have an amendment. February 25 1120 1907 THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes Mr. Eidmann. That has been passed once, Mr. Eidmann, at the time set for the assembling of the convention and it was set back till eight o’clock. MR. EIDMANN: I have to apologize for not being here. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secre- tary will read the amendment. Mr. Eidmann wants us to go back to 15. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Eidmann: Amend by adding on page 113 at the end of 15-2, the following, page 113, 15-2: “The City of Chi- cago shall also have authority to levy special assessments to defray the cost of sprinkling of improved streets with water.” MR. EIDMANN: Mr. Chairman, there may be a question of whether this is constitutional or not. There was a time in Chicago when the streets were sprinkled by special as- sessment. I think one of the biggest evils we have here in the City of Chi- cago is the dust from our macadam streets and well-paved streets, be- cause they are not sprinkled. In the City of St. Louis the streets are sprinkled by special assessment. I am informed under reliable authority that the cost for a 25-foot lot for the season’s sprinkling is about $1.25. The property owners in Chicago here and residents pay all the way fro.m $5, $6, $7, $8, $9 and $10 for the sprinkling of the street in front of their premises by private contract. The sprinkling of the streets has largely been taken over by a great number of improvement associations in the city at the present time. It is a hardship. It is a hardship that the taxpayer should not be burdened with. The fact of the matter is that the city council should make an ap- propriation each year to sprinkle the streets, just the same as they clean the streets. But I contend on every sanitary standpoint it is better to have the street — to have the dirt on the streets and the dust on the streets than to have it in the air. Mr. Chair- man, if there is no objection, I move the adoption of the amendment. MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that Mr. Eidmann has answered his own proposition be- cause he understands it is not an im- provement and cannot be made upon a special assessment. MR. EIDMANN: I don’t think that case was well presented. If there is no objection I would like to have it referred to the Law Commit- tee for an opinion. MR. FISHER: If you claim for it that it is a local improvement then it can be made under the law as it now stands. It is not a question of additional authority. MR. EIDMANN: In the case of a macadam street I am satisfied and any engineer can tell you from his ex- perience that a macadam street in the City of Chicago — any engineering au- thority will testify at any time that the life of a macadam street is im- proved all the way from 50 to 75 per cent by judicious sprinkling in the summer time. And in this case I think it would be proper and I think it would be a' permanent improve- ment. MR. FISHER: The question is, if I may be permitted; if it is a local improvement. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? MR. FISHER: I see no reason for specifying this in the charter. MR. ROSENTHAL:' The Su- preme Court has held that this as- sessment for the sprinkling of streets is invalid because they were not in the nature of permanent improve- ments. It cannot be said to be a February 25 1121 1907 permanent improvement. Now, all we have to do is to set our supreme court right, but we need not make any change in the charter because it is for a local improvement or not a local improvement, and, as Mr. Fisher suggested, I think Mr. Eidmann should employ good counsel and go to the supreme court again. MR. EIDMANN: I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that this case was taken to the supreme court from the town of Lake. That was the place where the supreme court — where the sprinkling was done by special as- sessment, and I think, certain parts of Hyde Park. The legislature was requested to pass an act legalizing the sprinkling of streets in Chicago. Governor Altgeld vetoed the measure passed by the legislature. I consider it is very vital from the sanitary standpoint and the economical stand- point that the matter should be given especially careful consideration by the best legal talent of this conven- tion as it is a very important matter. I think as I have said before that this service should be rendered by the City of Chicago out of a general fund. But if we are going to burden a gen- eral fund firstly by a percentage of the cost of the improvement of the streets hereafter I venture to say that it will- be very little left for the im- provement of streets outside the loop district or Chicago avenue on the north or Austin on the west and so forth. So that the provision if it can be legally embodied to take care of the laying of the dust should be in- serted. We should take care of the laying of the dust which every stranger that comes into town, and every visitor that comes to this town dwells on. It is a much bigger nuis- ance than the smoke nuisance in this city. You drive during the summer time in the outskirts of the town and you will find the trees and the foliage and the grass is gray from the lime- stone dust thrown out by every breeze of the wind, and blown into the houses, and blown into the stores and thus damaging the stock. And I am referring here especially to a street recently improved, Halsted street, from 55th to 79th, which was paved with a fine asphalt, but the dust is simply intolerable. The cars come along and sweep up the dirt, and the street by the time they stop, every passenger is covered with dust; the sidewalks are covered all the way from one-eighth to one-quarter of an inch every morning. It is thrown out by these street cars. And yet, Mr. Chairman if there is any doubt about it, I would like to have it re- ferred to the law committee for in- quiry. MR. GREENACRE: Mr. Chair- man, entirely apart from the legal question, I think that would be un- wise on principle for this reason as Mr. Eidmann admits it is a matter of maintenance. He says it will in- crease the value and the life of the pavement. If you commence main- taining things rather than improving them by special 'assessments there will be no end to it, and we will be maintaining all the various depart- ments of the city government by spe- cial assessment, and in that way we shall successfully avoid taxes. I op- pose it on principle. I cut the law question out, because I think on prin- ciple it should not be referred to the law committee and it should be dis- posed of now. It opens up the ques- tion of maintenance apart from spe- cial taxation. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor of Mr. Eidmann’s motion will signify the same by saying aye. Op- posed no. The motion is lost. The secretary will proceed. February 25 1122 1907 MR. EIDMANN : Mr. Chairman, on Section 2 ; I wish to have stricken out the first paragraph of the first section the last line, the word: “Owners,” after the word “property.” Special assessments are not on pri- vate property owners but they are on private property. For that reason the word: “owners” should be stricken out. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection, it will be so ordered. THE SECRETARY: Page 115, Article 16. Public utilities. 1, 2. MR. RAYMER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the record show that I vote against section 1. MR. CHAIRMAN: The record will so show. MR. ROBINS: I wish to move, Mr. Chairman, that section 2 together with the sections on Chapter 2 on page 23 be made a special order for consideration at the next meeting of this convention. MR. CHAIRMAN: What is that motion; you want the whole article deferred? MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman, speaking to that motion, it does seem to me as if we should proceed to consider this tonight. I would call your attention to the fact — THE CHAIRMAN: A little louder. MR. SHEPARD: I call your at- tention to the fact that so many have made an effort to attend this meeting tonight and we have what appears to me what appears to be quite a large attendance. We are entering on the discussion of this charter, and special orders have been made from time to time to accommodate members and this is about the last subject before the convention for its consideration and for its discussion. We have the whole evening before us and after urging the members to come at great personal sacrifice, it does seem to me as if we should proceed to the con- sideration of everything before the convention, and I therefore with re- luctance oppose this motion, but op- pose it for the good of this conven- tion and for the good of our charter. MR. ROBINS: Mr. Chairman, I understand we have quite a number of other matters to be taken up, and if it would meet the pleasure of the gentlemen that we defer this for the time being, I am willing to go that far, because I don’t think we shall reach it tonight considering all the other important matters we have to consider. I happen to know of cer- tain persons who have very consider- able interests in this, who are going to ask for a reconsideration if this is considered tonight, and it seems to me it is a waste of time for the con- vention to take it up as we have other important matters to consider which we can all agree about. We need not take up a matter over which there is such great controversy as this to- night. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the pleasure of this convention? MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman, as I understand Mr. Robins, he desires that this refers to only section 2. MR. ROBINS: Yes, only section 2, and this other matter set over at the same time, the other matter on page 22, which was passed at the time, as the record will show. MR. FISHER: I assume that relates to the question of the referen- dum, both as to the form of the peti- tion and the verification of the signa- tures and the percentage and vote re- quired. MR. ROBINS: That is the point. MR. FISHER: It certainly is true if we undertake the discussion on this matter this evening that there will be a motion in regard to the percentage February 25 1123 1907 to reconsider later on, and there may be other changes made under section 2 and it would serve no purpose to have them considered twice. I think it will be a saving of time if we post- pone action now. I want to call at- tention to that fact that section 9 should be included in the motion be- cause section 9 also contains a provi- sion in regard to the percentage. MR. ROBINS: You include sec- tion 9? MR. FISHER: Section 2 and 9, article 16. MR. ROBINS: Sections 2 and 9 containing the references to the per- centages for referendum petitions. MR. FISHER: I think we all re- cognize the fact that there are quite a number of gentlemen who are not here tonight who are vitally con- cerned in this matter, and if we argue this now it would probably have to be argued again. I think it would be better to have the argument all at one time and get through with it, rather than have it tonight and have to repeat it again. MR. SHEPARD: I suggest that we go ahead with the regular order, and if we cannot finish when the time comes to adjourn that it go over until the next meeting of the conven- tion. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is on sections 2 and 9 of article 16, that they be postponed. MR HOYNE: I amend that, I move that we pass the entire article. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the motion? MR. HOYNE: That the entire article be passed. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor — MR. MERRIAM: (Interrupting.) If a motion is in order here, I move that we take up article 17, if Mr. Robins will withdraw his motion. MR. ROBINS: I will withdraw the motion. MR. MERRIAM: We will now, proceed to the consideration of article 17. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon the postponing of those sec- tions, or of this whole section. MR. MERRIAM: Mr. Robins withdrew that motion, as I under- stand it. MR. CHAIRMAN: If Mr. Robins has withdrawn the motion there is no motion before the house. MR MERRIAM: I made a mo- tion. MR. HOYNE: And I made a mo- tion. THE CHAIRMAN: We have been reading this paragraph by para- graph, that is the method we have been pursuing. MR. HOYNE: My motion was that we pass the entire No. 17 for further consideration. MR. MERRIAM: A point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: You move to postpone, Mr. Hoyne? MR. HOYNE: That is it. MR. MERRIAM: A point of or- der. Mr. Robins withdrew his mo- tion with, the understanding that I was to move that article 17 be taken up. Was not that the case, Mr. Robins? MR. ROBINS: That is true, Mr. Chairman. MR. MERRIAM: I move that we take up article 17. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion; all those in favor signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. It is carried. THE CHAIRMAN: Article 17, page 122. THE SECRETARY: Article 17, water supply. 1, 2, 3; take 123 — MR. BENNETT: In connection February 25 1124 1907 with this water supply article, I want to move that the drafting committee be requested to prepare an additional section which will provide that the issuance of warrants and obligations be payable solely out of the water fund, and shall not be included in the municipal debt. Now, I think that can be done under this amendment to the constitution, and it would be a material help in financing the exten- sion of the water works system. These warrants are payable solely out of the water works fund, and they are now included in our debt limit. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection to Mr. Bennett’s amend- ment? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye; those opposed, no. It is carried. MR. ROSENTHAL: Section 1 of that article — I don’t know what is meant by this language: “The juris- diction of the city for the purpose of preventing” — I am not using the word “punishing,” “ preventing injury to its water supply shall ex- tend five miles.” As a matter of fact, the jurisdiction at the present time is indefinite, because we might proceed by injunction, or might pro- ceed otherwise. It might be con- tended that if anybody polluters the water supply, which is outside of the five-mile limit the city would have no redress; that certainly would be a peculiar situation, and I do not be- lieve that is the intention of the draft- ing committee to have it so under- stood. I move that the drafting com- mittee redraft this section so as to express the proper sense. MR. MERRIAM: That is the present law, is it not, Mr. Rosenthal? MR. ROSENTHAL: I think this is a mistake. MR. FISHER: I think Mr. Rosen- thal misunderstood this section; I think he frankly admitted he did not understand it. The exercise of the jurisdiction within five miles — that is not the exact language, but that does not apply, that is not the same thing as applying to a court of chancery for an injunction. A property owner does not exercise any jurisdiction be- yond what is his, yet he can apply for an injunction, and it then rests within the discretion of the court. This gives the city jurisdiction as a municipality. As I understand it,, that is the intent of it. MR. ROSENTHAL: What does that particular language mean? MR. FISHER: I suppose it is in- tended to apply to Lake Michigan. I think it is the same language as con- tained in the present law. It is in- tended to allow jurisdiction out in the lake for a distance of five miles for the purpose of preventing any pollu- tion of the water supply. We can prevent anybody by physical force, or police force, ,by patrol boat, or something else, from dumping stuff out there; we have the police jurisdic- tion to prevent pollution within five miles. That is what it is intended to cover. MR. ROSENTHAL: If we have jurisdiction over the submerged lands we can do it in that way, can’t we? MR. FISHER: I don’t know whether we can or not, I don’t know whether jurisdiction over submerged lands extends to superimposed waters or not, unless it is in the charter. At any rate, I understand this language refers to the statute. THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead with No. 18. THE SECRETARY: Page 127, article 18; 1, 2, 3, page 124, 4. 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9, 10. MR. LATHROP: I wish to offer an amendment to section 10 by add- ing to section 10 a paragraph substan- tially as follows: February 25 1125 1907 THE SECRETARY: “By Mr. Lathrop : Amend section 10 by adding to it a paragraph substantially as follows: The board of park commissioners shall have authority to enter into con- tracts or agreements under seal with any owners of property abutting on any parkway or boulevard, relating to the maintenance, upkeep and repair of said parkway or boulevard, and providing for annual contribution by such property owners therefor when such contracts or agreements shall contain a provision to the effect that they are to be regarded as covenants running with the land, then upon the recording thereof in the office of the recorder of deeds of Cook county, such covenants or agreements provid- ing for contribution by property own- ers as aforesaid shall become a lien upon the premises therein described to the extent of the agreement of the owner of each lot or parcel of land for the payment of such amounts as may be therein agreed upon, for the main- tenance, upkeep and repair of such parkway or boulevard. MR. LATHROP: Just a few words in explanation of the amend- ment offered. In the past it has been the custom of the Lincoln Park board for many years in taking over streets as parkways and boulevards, to make an agreement with the abutting prop- erty owners that the cost of mainte- nance and repair should never fall upon the park funds and become a burden upon the public. We have been advised universally by lawyers that this agreement, while binding upon the owners during their lives, or while they continued to own the abutting property, that while those agreements were binding upon them, they were not binding upon sub- sequent owners. In other words, no agreement can now be entered into on the part of property owners with the park com- missioners for an annual payment or contribution for maintenance, which can be made a lien upon the property, and we were advised that such agree- ments might be made a lien if there was a law providing for it. Now, that is the condition of Lin- coln Park boulevard, also Sheridan road, or Diversey avenue east of the north part of State Street and Dear- born avenue. It seems to me obvious that it is unjust that streets should be taken over, which are not a necessary link — which are not necessary links in the boulevard systems, unless the property owners will maintain them. In order to avoid that the Lincoln Park board several years ago passed a resolution that the board would thereafter take no more streets over that were not necessary to the boule- vard system unless the property own- ers should deposit with the board a sum of money, the interest on which at a low rate would provide a sum. say 50 cents per running foot, to take care of the cost and expenses. This provision is simply to legalize such agreement to be made between the property owners and the park com- missioners. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor of Mr. Lathrop’s resolution signify by saying aye. Those op- posed no. It is carried. THE SECRETARY: 11, 12, 13. MR. ROSENTHAL: In 11, I think the same words should be sub- stituted that I, mentioned once be- fore, “goods, chattels and fixtures” instead of “personal property.” THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection, it will be so ordered. MR. LATHROP: I wish to offer an amendment to section 13, by strik- ing out section 13 and substituting what I have here. I say substituting, February 25 1126 1907 because this should be referred to the drafting committee and put in the proper form. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Lathrop: Amend by striking out section 13 and substituting therefor a section substantially as follows: 18-13. Any person violating any rule, ordinance, or regulation relating to the parks, boulevards, parkways or other property within the jurisdiction of said park commissioners, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, on conviction, be punished by a fine or imprisonment in the bride- well of the City of Chicago, or both, but no fine thus imposed shall exceed the sum of $1,000 for any one offense nor shall any imprisonment exceed ninety days duration. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? MR. LATHROP: I would like to say one word in explanation only. It has been the custom in the past when men have been arrested for offenses to have them confined in the Bride- well. There is no existing authority really for that, and it has merely been by courtesy, as it were, of the city that those men have been imprisoned there. The park commissioners had no place to imprison them. MR. BENNETT: The question rises in my mind as to whether all these ordinances referred to in sec- tions 12 and 13 should not properly be passed by the city council with the concurrence of the park commission- ers. Now, the city has corporate au- thority, and these sections provide, section 12 provides that the commis- sioners may pass ordinances and the city ordinances now in force, or here- after entered shall be presumed not to apply to the parks. I don’t know but the better way would be to have the ordinances passed upon the recommendation of the park commissioners and have the ordinances passed by the city council. MR. LATHROP: No objection to that, Mr. Bennett, at all. MR. BENNETT: I think that would be the better way and more effective. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? Do you offer that in the form of an amendment, Mr. Bennett? MR. BENNETT: Yes, I move that these sections be redrafted so as to make such provision. THE CHAIRMAN: That the or- dinances shall be passed by the city at the recommendation of the park commissioners? MR. BENNETT: Yes, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor will signify by saying aye; those opposed no. It is carried. THE SECRETARY: 14, 15. MR. ROSENTHAL: In connec- tion with section 12, the second para- graph should be redrafted, because it will leave some ambiguity and lead to mistakes. It says, “Such ordi- nances now in force or hereafter en- acted, shall be presumed not to apply to the parks, if contrary to any regu- lations made by the authority of this section.” THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ben- nett’s resolution will cover all that; the resolution would be made to apply to that. THE SECRETARY: 14, 15. MR. LATHROP: I have an amendment to section 15 which I would like to have read. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Lathrop: 18-15. Amend by the ad- dition of provision substantially as follows: The police under the con- trol of the board of park commission- ers may, by the direction of the February 25 1127 1907 mayor or the chief of police of the city and the president of the park board, exercise the powers and per- form the duties of police officers at any place within the City of Chicago, and any police officer of the City of Chicago may, by a like authority of the mayor or the chief of police of the City of Chicago and the president of the park board, exercise and perform the same duties and powers within the limits of the parks, boulevards and parkways as are now conferred upon park policemen. THE CHAIRMAN: Any objec- tion to this change? If not, all those in favor will signify by saying aye. MR. SHANAHAN: I would like to ask for information if by that amendment members of the park po- lice force would become members of the city police force? MR. LATHROP: If you will ob- serve this section, it provides simply that members of the park police force will have authority only within the limits of the parks. There may be cases and occasions when it may be found desirable to have the city police help in the affairs of the park, and vice versa. It think that is the gen- eral intent, and it is simply in regard to matters of that kind. THE CHAIRMAN: As many as favor the substitution of this will sig- nify by saying aye. Those opposed no. It is carried. THE SECRETARY: 16, 17, 18, 19; page 128, 20, 21. MR. ROBINS: What about this charge in the second paragraph of 19, “an admission fee not to exceed 25 cents for each visitor over ten years of age may be charged and per- mitted.” Has that been the custom in the past? MR. LATHROP: May I answer that? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. LATHROP: I think, Mr. Robins, that this is intended largely to apply to the Art Institute and the Field Museum, where a charge of that kind has been made for years. THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed. THE SECRETARY: 20, 21, 22, 23; page 129, 24, 25, 26, 27; page 130, article 19 — MR. ROSENTHAL: Before we proceed with that article, it seems to me we ought to have had section 7, article 18 on page 124, “subject to the civil service law,” or “pursuant to the civil service law,” subject to the power of the city of the city council. MR. LATHROP: I think that is provided for, Mr. Rosenthal, in an- other section. MR. ROSENTHAL: I do not find the section. MR. LATHROP: I think you will find it in article 1-13 and then again in article 7-2-7-11, fully covered. MR. MAQMILLAN: There is a verbal change, where the word “com- mon council” occurs we had better make it “city council.” THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I have so changed it. The secretary will proceed with “compulsory educa- tion.” THE SECRETARY: Page 136, article 20, “Compulsory education,” 1, 2, 3; page 138, 4, 5; page 139, 6, 7, 8. MR. ROSENTHAL: In No. 9— well, never mind. THE SECRETARY: Page 140; 9, 10, 11; 141, 12, 13. Article 21. The Public Library, 1, 2; page 142, 3, 4. MR. BROSSEAU: Tn regard to ar- ticle 4, I wish to add in the fourth line after the words “chief librarian” “and secretary of the board.” THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brosseau February 25 1128 1907 moves to insert the words “and sec- retary of the board.” MR. BROSSEAU: That means to exempt the secretary of the library board from the action of civil serv- ice. The secretary of the library board is substantially the financial agent of the board. He is not now under civil service. THE CHAIRMAN: As many as favor that will signify by saying Aye. Those opposed, No. It is carried. MR. J. W. ECKHART: After the word “librarian,” or rather after the words “the librarian shall have the power to appoint or make provision for the appointment of librarians” and the words “and secretary.” THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Eckhart moves to insert the words “and sec- retary” in section 4. As many as fa- vor that will signify by saying Aye; those opposed, No; it is carried. THE SECRETARY: Page 142; 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. MR. J. W. ECKHART: 21-8, I want to insert after the word “held” the words “in the custody of.” MR. MACMILLAN: What is the line? MR. J. W. ECKHART: That is the fourth line, after the word “held,” in 21 - 8 . THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Eckhart moves to insert the words “in the custody of.” All those in favor sig- nify by saying Aye; those opposed, No. It is carried. MR. ROSENTHAL: In the same section, after the word “so” I move to amend it by inserting the words “either in the city of Chicago, or in the board of directors, of the library.” That is section 21-8, page 143. It is quite important and necessary at times to invest the title in the board of directors, and it is very doubtful whether that can be done unless we provide for it in this way. That will IS? I provide that it may be vested in the city of Chicago, or in the board. MR. BENNETT: That' occurred to me, and I think it should be so that it could be left to the city, probably I think it should be left in the city; but there may be some reason for this provision. MR. J. W. ECKHART: In this provision I want to say that this does not refer to money; this refers to gifts, that the title by deeds of prop- erty, deeds vested in the board of di- rectors of the Chicago Public library could not be invested in the city. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Eckhart, if the charter convention will indulge me for one moment, my point is this: A gift may be made by will to the city of Chicago, and the question would then arise whether under this clause that gift would be or could in such way be made to the city for li- brary purposes, so that it should have the authority to accept it, or the trustees, or the board of directors of the library could accept it for library purposes. MR. J. W. ECKHART: Well, that would be agreeable to me. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in fa- vor of Mr. .Rosenthal’s amendment will signify by saying Aye. Those opposed. No. Carried. THE SECRETARY: Page 143, ar- ticle 22. General Provisions 1. Page 144; 2, 3, 4, 5. Article 23. MR. WERNO: I offered an amend- ment yesterday for section 5. I was not here when that came up, but I understand it was the intention that there should be a provision in the charter itself providing for the sub- mission of this act to a vote of the people, and if adopted by the people that it should then become a part of the charter. THE CHAIRMAN: That is printed on page 1036. February 25 1129 1907 MR. WERNO: My amendment is that section 5, article 22, be amended in accordance with the amendment I submitted yesterday, which was pub- lished in yesterday’s, or Saturday’s proceedings, article 22, General Pro- visions. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, what has that to do with section 5? MR. WERNO: I would like to have the section read that I sent in, as amended. The secretary read the resolution as printed in the proceedings at page 1036. MR. MERRIAM: I would like to ask Mr. Werno what the effect of that would be. It says this act here, with two sep- arate acts is recommended. Now, what would be the effect of that in law? MR. SHEPARD: I think the aider- man should modify it so as to limit this act, so that when his act is adopted it shall become a part of the charter of the city of Chicago. MR. MERRIAM: The law does not know any separate acts. I should like to have Alderman Werno explain it. MR. WERNO: The idea is that the charter itself is one act. Then there are two other acts, here, which, as I understand it, this convention decided should be recommended to the legisla- ture for adoption. MR. SHEPARD; Just limit your motion to this act. As I understand it, you desire that when that act is adopted it then becomes a part of the city char- er? MR. WERNO: Yes, and that amend- ment also refers to article 23 which pro- vides that it shall be submitted to the vote of the people. MR. ROSENTHAL: Will you yield to a question? THE CHAIRMAN: Why should it not become a part of the charter? MR, ROSENTHAL: Yes, that is the way. MR. WERNO: That would mean that when the charter is submitted to the people the bill also must be submitted to the people. MR. ROSENTHAL: Couldn’t the legislature do that anyway? It could strike out that law. MR. WERNO: Certainly they could strike it out. MR. ROSENTHAL: Why not attach it to the other subject? MR. PENDARVIS: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that no one act we may rec- ommend, and which we may call the charter will be the charter finally. The charter may consist of half a dozen dif- ferent acts that may be recommended or passed by the legislature. The Mu- nicipal Court Act is as much a part of this charter as any other part of the charter. MR. FISHER: I do not think Mr. Werno ’s point is correctly stated in his amendment. Organizations and others who are interested in this Sunday clos- ing question have accepted the proposi- tion which was suggested here as a com- promise on the whole matter. MR. YOUNG: The proposition should be submitted to the people by separate referendums, but they want it as a part of the charter. They want it to come to the legislature as a part of the chart- er; in other words, they want to have this provision which is now embodied in this separate bill, written in as a part of the charter as Section So-and-So and Article So-and-So, whatever it may be, but provide when those particular sec- tions of that particular article are reach- ed they shall not go into effect unless and until there is a particular referen- dum on that. Now, I see no special ob- jection to drafting it in that way. It should be referred to the drafting com- mittee to redraft it in accordance to that desire. MR. MICHAELIS : As I understand it, on December 7th, the United Societies for Local Self Government called on the committee and after much discussion February 25 1130 1907 there was a dissenting vote. A proposi- tion was submitted. Now, the Sunday closing question comes up at nearly every election. Near- ly always the candidates declare they will not interfere with the closing act. There are hundreds of thousands of peo- ple in this city who can only enjoy those pleasures that they are looking for on that particular day. At the last time of the election they declared that they would not interfere with the Sunday closing law. Now, it seems to me, gentlemen, that the conditions existing in this city are so absolutely different from those in any other town or village in the state that I cannot understand why that should go down to Springfield covering just this one question which interests hundreds of thousands of people in this city only, —why should that go to the legislature? We understood at the time that it was to be a part of the charter, but if the citizens work for it at the election, it was to be voted on separately, and if the citizens did not want it and voted it down then it would be a part of the char- ter again. In the bill as drafted Article 23 says it should be submitted as a special bill in Springfield; now, I do not see why that should be submitted as a special bill in Springfield when everything else is in the charter. I think we ought to make this Article 22 as a part of Sec- tion 5, — Section 22, Article 5, — and make these two things that are submitted here as special views, make them belong to Article 5. Now, I do not think that is unfair, gentlemen, and I really think this convention ought to do that. It did so decide by unanimous vote on the 27th day of December. MR. MERRIAM: A separate bill. MR. MICHAELIS : No, as a part of the charter. Here is the record of De- cember 27th; but, when the bill was framed, we found Article 23 had only two things that were to be voted on separately. Now, gentlemen, I shall be very much pleased if you can see your way clear to make that a part of the charter. It is a matter that interests hundreds of thousands of people in the city, and I do not see why that should be made a special bill down in Springfield. If these organizations wanted a special bill they could introduce a special bill without this. MR. FISHER : I move you, Mr. Chair- man, after this separate bill has been considered so that this article, whether it meets the views of the convention, that it be re-referred to the Committee on Rules and General Procedure and go through the Law Department, provided the Law Commitee thinks it is proper. There is a question of technical legality involved as to whether you can make the charter go into effect that way ; but, it seems to me possible to draft it in that way, and I think the motion that I have made will cover the point. THE CHAIRMAN : As many as are in favor will please signify my stating I I aye. ’ ’ MR. CHURCH: Please state the mo- tion again. MR. FISHER; the motion is that we shall proceed to consider this bill, and .when it is in shape it shall be re-referred to the Committee on General Rules and Procedure, and the Law Committee, and be incorporated as a special article under this charter ; if that be correct, — but, otherwise shall be separate. MR. SMULSKI: What is the objec- tion to having that section amended, or rather, that paragraph amended as pro- posed by Mr. Werno? It simply in- cludes in that charter those two propo- sitions. Your proposition here is to pro- vide bills for the city of Chicago, and then you have two other bills that are entirely outside of this bill. The amendment of this section will simply strike out the intention of this Convention to have those two provisions February 25 1131 1907 in that charter, and if the amendment as made by Mr. Werno is passed, it would be clear that that was the intention of the convention. ME. FISHEE : But when it appeared as a part of the statute it would not mean anything at all. Now, we are assum- ing that this act has been passed by the legislature in the form in which we have recommended it. Now, we suppose it is on the books of the State of Illinois as an Act; Then it says this act recom- mended. By whom? By the charter con- vention of the city of Chicago. It does not belong in the statute at all. It is all right as a part of the report of this convention but what we all want is a part of the statute. MB. SMULSKI: I submit, it is not the intention to have the bill in the charter itself, but it is the intention of the drafters of the charter that the bill should provide for that very thing; that those two provisions would be included in the draft of the charter. ME. FISHEE : I think they would be proper in the statute itself then. That would not have any place in the statute. If the bill, after the re-reference which I have moved, is thought to be necessary to be submitted as a separate bill, then you can attach to that separate bill the portions desired, and it is a part of the charter, passed under the constitutional amendment ; but it would not do any good to have that mentioned in another bill; it would do no good to say that this part, together with other things recom- mended by the Charter Convention was a part of the charter. I think Mr. Pendarvis’ point was well taken. The charter may consist of forty acts before we get through with this thing. New acts passed hereafter may be a part of the charter of the city of Chicago. MB. YOUNG: I do not understand the motion, whether that refers to para- graph 5 of the preceding question or 6 and 23. It seems to me that if Article 23 states an affirmative vote of the peo- ple, that these sections shall become a part of the charter, but that is all that is desired. THE CHAIEMAN : I understand that is what is sought to be done, that if these acts are adopted, they shall be of their own force upon the charter. Now, I do not see why the drafting committee cannot frame that so as to be satisfac- tory to everybody. ME. WEBNO: I think it should pro- vide that these acts should be submitted to the people and then at the end of this act add that if the act is adopted by the people it shall then become a part of the charter. THE CHAIEMAN: For these sep- arate acts? If these separate acts are? ME. WEBNO: Yes. ME. G. W. DIXON: Question. THE CHAIEMAN: It- is purely a question of getting it properly framed by the drafting committee. Let us see if the Chairman is correct : The draft- ing committee is directed to redraft the proper sections so that when these sep- arate acts have been adopted by a sep- arate referendum they shall, at that date, become a part of the city charter. There seems to be no difference there. Are you ready for the question? MB. MEEEIAM: That means the voters shall vote alone on this question of Sunday closing or Sunday opening? THE CHAIEMAN: Will you kindly state that again? ME. MEEEIAM: Does that mean in the general referendum on this so-called charter act that the voters shall vote on the question of Sunday opening or Sun- day closing or does it mean a different act? ME. FISHEE: My motion is before the house. You have before this referred matters to the Law Committee to see whether you can have it drafted and made a part of the charter, or whether you have to have a separate bill. We have provisions in this charter that do February 25 1132 1907 not go into effect unless they are approv- ed. Now, it may be possible that you will have to have an entirely separate act, a separate act that will stand entirely on its own body as a separate act? THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying ‘ ‘ aye. ’ ’ Those opposed, “no.” It is so ordered. Article 23. MR. ROSENTHAL: I do not think that Article 23 has been disposed of. I think the drafting committee ought to be instructed to draft some such pro- vision as is attached to the Municipal Court Act, for the submission of this act to the people. I believe that ques- tion, that that special provision has been passed upon by the Supreme Court in the Snyder case and has been approv- ed, and unless we have it provided for in this act itself, as to method of sub- mission we raise, of course, the difficul- ties of the general law. MR, SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman, I now move you that the drafting com- mittee shall be asked to draft some pro- vision similar to Section 67 of the Mu- nicipal Court Act for the submission of this act to the vote of the people. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion, that the drafting committee redraft these submission sec- tions so as to conform to the Submission Act of the Court Act. The Chair desires to say that there have been some hours spent upon this submission section, more hours on tliis section than anything else, and the le- gal sharps have spent a great deal of time on it. MR. ROSENTHAL: Was that before or after the decision of the Supreme Court ? MR. FISHER : After. MR, ROSENTHAL: Well, I think they should spend a little more time on it. MR. FISHER: If Mr. Rosenthal would make his motion so it would not be obligatory upon the committee, but that they will consider that the propo- sition referred to it, and not be bound to draft a thing of that kind. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection, it will simply be a suggestion on the part of Mr. Rosenthal. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman, I call up for passage the bill I introduced some days ago: It is found on page 1036. It is for the repeal of Section 2 of the Juul Law; the proceedings of February 23. I do not know whether you want this read or not. THE SECRETARY: Page 1036. THE CHAIRMAN; This is to make the Juul Law conform to the Revenue Law of this act? MR. SHEPARD: That is to repeal a section of it — reciting that the pro- visions of this charter are inconsistent with the Juul Law, and the provisions of the Juul Law are not in harmony with the purposes of the Revenue Laws of this charter. MR. FISHER : Question. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? All those in favor will signify by vot- ing 1 1 aye. ’ ’ Those opposed, “ no. ” The motion is carried. MR. FISHER: I think before the Sunday closing bill goes back to the committee that any suggestions that are to be made to it should be made before the convention, so that it will be in ac- cordance with any changes that are de- sired by the convention, as to whether in other respects it meets the approval of the convention. It should be easy to see whether or not there is anything else there. Just read it by title. THE CHAIRMAN: xn umber 1 of the Shepard bill and Number 2. Number 1 of the Second Shepard bill and Number 2 . MR. ROSENTHAL: I gave notice for the motion for a reconsideration of the vote on pages 111 and 112 of Sections 5, 6 and 7 of Article 14. February 25 1133 1907 I have discussed the matter with Pro- fessor Freund, who seems to be of the same opinion that I was at the time that that motion was made or attempted to be made by Mr. Raymer, to refer this mat- ter to the Law Committee; and, there was also a motion by Mr. Pendarvis to strike out the second paragraph of Sec- tion 7. Now, with regard to Section 6, I would like to have it changed. It is a letter signed by Mr. Abel Davis, the Recorder, to Doctor Freund, which explains itself. MR. MERRIAM: In regard to what section ? MR. ROSENTHAL: Section 6. THE CHAIRMAN : If you desire you can take it up at another sitting. We have got to have another meeting. MR. ROSENTHAL: Well, we have got to have another meeting, and I will take it up at the other meeting. MR. FISHER : It might be printed. THE CHAIRMAN: It will be print- ed. MR. J. W. ECKHART: I would like to go to Article 21. MR. ROSENTHAL: That motion will be for reconsideration, Mr. Chairman? THE CHAIRMAN : Your rights will be preserved. MR. J. W. ECKHART: Mr. Chair- man, I ask you to go back to Article 12 and act on the resolution offered on page 953 of the record. MR. ROSENTHAL: What page? MR. J. W. ECKHART : 953. THE SECRETARY; Also 1033 of the present procedings. By. Mr. J. W. Eck- hart:- Resolved, That it is the sense of this convention that the present pen- sion law providing for a pension system of employes of the Chicago Public Li- brary be included in the proposed char- ter for the City of Chicago. MR. J. W. ECKHART: Mr. Chair- man, the pension law that we have there does not use any money from taxation at all. It is provided by voluntary con- tributions by the employes and by fines. I would like to have that adopted. MR. BENNETT: It hardly seems necessary to introduce and insert that in the charter. It is purely a matter of voluntary contribution between the em- ployes of the department of library. I think it should be left as it is now. This pension fund is not carried on under any authority today. MR. J. W. ECKHART: It is volun- tary. MR. McMILLAN: Mr. Chairman, I suggest to Mr. Bennett that part of it does not come out of the voluntary con- tributions of the employes. Part of it comes out of fines. MR. J. W. ECKHART : I stated that. MR. McMILLAN: It does not all come from moneys contributed by em- ployes altogether. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, on the subject of these pensions, to my mind there is only one class of employes which should be recognized as profiting by pen- sions, and that is the class which per- forms hazardous work. Take for ex- ample the police department,, the fire department, and the department of elec- tricity. When you depart from that rule you get into deep sea at once, and we will simply be swamped by efforts to get pensions for people in almost every department of the city government. I have no objection to the present pension laws of the Library Board, where it is taken only out of the fines, and so forth, but I scarcely think it should be in this charter. We left all the other pensions out of the charter, and I think it should be left in this way. If there is a pres- ent separate statute on that we may leave it as it is. MR. ,T. W. ECKHART: There is a difference. MR. ROBINS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask whether there is any- thing in the charter as drawn that pre- vents the city of'Chicago from arrang- February 25 1134 1907 ing for pensions for employes of the city? THE CHAIRMAN: I think not. I think that is the proper method to pur- sue. What will you do with Mr. Eck- hart’s motion?- All those in favor of it signify the same by saying “aye.” All those opposed, “no.” MR. SHEPARD : I understood it was withdrawn. THE CHAIRMAN: What is that? MR. SHEPARD : I understood it was withdrawn. THE CHAIRMAN: No. All those in favor say “aye. ” All those op- posed, “no.” The motion is lost. MR. ROSENTHAL: On page 124, Mr. Chairman, section 18-8, next to the last line of the first paragraph, there is a fatal omission. THE CHAIRMAN : The chair can- not hear you unless you speak louder. MR. ROSENTHAL: Page 124, sec- tion 18-8, next to the last line of the first paragraph there is a fatal omis- sion. I move to insert the words: after '“within the jurisdiction” “or bor- dering upon.” Page 124, article 18, section 8. Next to the last line of par- agraph 1. THE CHAIRMAN: You move to in- sert the words: “or bordering upon.” All those in favor signify the same by saying “aye.” Opposed, “no.” Car- ried. The convention will now stand ad- journed till Friday morning at 10:00 o ’clock, at which time the completed charter will be presented. The matter of public utilities will be presented to the convention, and the chair believes that will be the last meeting that will be held. In fact he is certain of it. And the convention stood adjourned to meet Friday, March 1, 1907, at 10:00 o’clock a. m. February 25 1135 1907 Resolutions offered from the floor of the Convention. BY MR. BENNETT: Resolved, that the present laws re- lating to firemen’s pensions be retained and included in the charter. BY MR. SNOW: Amend proposition 1, Section 16, Pub- lic Utilities, by striking out all after the word “city” in line 11, and insert- ing in lieu thereof the following: “also to docks and wharves.” BY MR. SHEDD: Resolved, That in cases where a po- lice officer, in the actual discharge of his duty, is charged with an offense, such as murder, manslaughter, or other serious charge, or charges, that the Common Council shall appropriate a sufficient fund for attorney’s fees to the end that such officer shall be prop- erly represented in court, and the truth of said allegations brought out. BY MR. PENDARVIS: Resolved, That the charter shall con- tain a provision preserving the integ- rity of prohibition districts established by ordinance of the city, and providing that the City Council shall have no power to modify or abolish any such prohibition district until the proposi- tion to so modify or abolish any such district shall, upon a petition of not less than 20 per cent, of the legal voters thdn residing within any such district, be submitted to and be ap- proved by a majority of all the legal voters residing within such prohibition district. BY MR. BENNETT: Resolved, That the present pension laws relating to policemen be retained and included in the charter. BY MR. McCORMICK: The mayor shall, as often as yearly, and may as often as semi-annually, ap- point certified public accountants, to ex- amine and audit the accounts of the city, and the report thereof, together with any recommendation of such ac- countants, as to change in the businesB methods of the city, or of any of its de- partments, officers, or employes, shall be made to the mayor and City Coun- cil, and be spread upon the records of the latter. The expenses of such audit shall be paid by the city. BY MR. GREENACRE: Amend Section 1 of Article 12 (page 104) by inserting therein immediately after the words “levied for library pur- poses” and before the words “certified copy of such ordinance, ’ ’ the following sentence : Said City Council shall have power to set aside from any such specified amount levied for any of said purposes, parts thereof, together not exceeding one per cent thereof, and contribute the same to pension funds for disabled, retired or superannuated public servants of any de- partment toward the maintenance of which such specified amount levied ap- plies. By MR. GREENACRE: Amend arti- cle 12 by adding thereto as section la after section 1 : “Interest accruing under section 16 of article 11 shall be distributed pro- portionately between and credited to the separate funds above provided for. “The proper authority may set aside all or any part of the interest so added February 25 1136 1907 to any such separate fund and contribute same to pension funds for disabled, re- tired or superannuated public servants of the department toward the mainte- nance of which department such separate fund applies. i ‘ Provided, however, that such interest so contributed shall never in any year exceed one per cent of the principal of such separate fund. ’ ’ CORRECTIONS MR. COLE: Page 1013, strike out remarks in first column and substitute the following : * 1 1 am glad to know t 7 mt Mr. Wilson has his head turned towards Zion and I hope he will be encouraged, and that the amendment will prevail. ” COMMUNICATION Chicago, Feb. 19, 1907. Dear Doctor:— I was absent from the city for a few days, and have just received your note of February 10, in regard to the pro- posed section of the Charter dealing with maps and plats. I am very glad that you ask my opinion in regard to the sec- tion submitted. The Recorder’s Office has no way of determining whether there any streets and alleys in any parcel of land, of which a map or plat is about to be filed. The Recorder would not be in a position to know when a map or plat should bear the approval of the city and when it should not. Besides, I again call your attention to the provisions of Section 13 r Chapter 115, Revised Statutes of Illinois, in regard to Recorders, which makes it unlawful for any recorder to record 1 1 any map, plat or subdivision, situated in any incorporated city, town or village, until the same shall have been approved by the legislative authority, etc. The safer and more satisfactory man- ner is to have the City pass upon every map or plat of property to be affected by the filing of such map or plat. Yours very truly, ABEL DAVIS. To Dr. Ernest Freund, University of Chi- cago, Chicago. February 25 H3: 1907 RESOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO AMENDMENT OF STATE CONSTITUTION Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Illinois, the Senate concurring there: in That there shall be submitted to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection at the next election of members of the General Assem- bly, a proposition to amend the Constitution of this State as follows: Resolved, That Article IV of the Constitution of this State be amended by ading thereto a section to be numbered and known as Section 34, and reading as follows, to-wit: Section 34. The General Assembly shall have power, subject to the condi- tions and limitations hereinafter contained to pass any law (local, special or general) providing a scheme or charter of local municipal government for thei territory now or hereafter embraced within the limits of the City of Chicago. The law or laws so passed may provide for consolidating (in whole or in part) in the municipal government of the City of Chicago, the powers now vested in the city, board of education, township, park and other local governments and authorities having jurisdiction confined to or within said territory, or any part thereof, and for the assumption by the City of Chicago of the debts and liabilities (in whole or in part) of the governments or corporate authorities whose functions within its territory shall be vested in said City of Chicago and may / authorize said city in the event of its becoming liable for the indebtedness of two or more of the existing municipal corporations lying wholly within said City of Chicago, to become indebted to an amount (including its existing indebtedness and the indebtedness of all municipal corporations lying wholly within the limits of said city, and said city’s proportionate share of the indebtedness of said county and sanitary district which share shall be determined in such manner as the General Assembly shall prescribe) in its aggregate not exceeding five per centum of the full value of the taxable property within its limits as ascertained by the last assessment either for State or municipal purposes previous to the incurring of such indebtedness (but no new bonded indebtedness, other than for refunding purposes, shall be incurred until the proposition therefor shall be consented to by a majorfty of the legal voters of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special); and may provide for the assessment of property and the levy and collection of taxes within said city for corporate purposes in accordance with the principles of equality and uniformity prescribed by this Constitution; and may abolish all offices, the functions of which shall be otherwise provided for; and may provide for the annexation of territory to or disconnection of territory from said City of Chicago by the consent of a majority of the legal voters (voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special) of the said city and of a majority of the voters of such territory, voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special, and in case the General Assembly shall create municipal courts in the City of Chicago it may abolish the offices of Justices of the Peace, Police Magistrates and Constables in and for the territory within said city and may limit the jursidiction of Justices of the Peace in the territory of said County of Cook outside of said city to that territory, and in such case the jurisdiction and practice of said municipal courts shall be such as the General Assembly shall prescribe; and the February 25 1138 1 90 7 General Assembly may pass all laws which it may deem requisite to effectually provide a complete system of local municipal government in and for the City of Chicago. No law based upon this amendment to the Constitution, affecting the municipal government of the City of Chicago, shall take effect until such law shall be con- sented to by a majority of the legal voters of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special; and no local or special law based upon this amendment affecting specially any part of the City of Chicago shall take effect until consented to by a majority of the legal voters of such part of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special. Nothing in this section contained shall be construed to repeal, amend or affect Section Four (4) of Article XI of the Constitution of this State. Adopted by the House, April 22, 1903. Concurred in by the Senate, April 22, 1903. % PROCEEDINGS OP THE Chicago Charter Convention CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 1907 CChinuui (filjartrr CCmuirntimi Convened, December 12, 1900 Headquarters 171 WASHINGTON STREET TELEPHONE MAIN 4877 Milton J. Foreman Chairman Alexander H. Newell. . . Vice-Chairman M. L. McKinley Secretary Henry Barrett Chamberlin, Asst. Secy March 1 1141 1907 PROCEEDINGS OF THE Chicago Charter Convention CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Regular Meeting, Friday, March i, 1907 10 O’clock A. M., in the City Council Chamber OFFICIAL RECORD Published by authority of the Chicago Charter Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: The convention will be in order and the secretary will call the roll. Present — Foreman, Chairman, and Badenoch, Beilfuss, Bennett, Brown, Burke, Church, Cole, Dixon, G. W., Dixon, T. J., Eckhart, B. A., Eidmann, Fisher, Gansbergen, Greenacre, Guerin, Harrison, Hill, Hoyne, Hunter, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, MacMil- lan, McGoorty, Merriam, Michaelis, O’Donnell, Owens, Pendarvis, Post, Raymer, Robins, Rosenthal, Sethness, Shanahan, Shepard, Snow, Sunny, Tay- lor, Vopicka, Werno, White, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 47. Absent — Baker, Beebe, Brosseau, Carey, Clettenberg, Crilly, Dever, Eck- hart, J. W., Erickson, Graham, Haas, Lundberg, McCormick, McKinley, Oehne, Paullin, Powers, Rainey, Revoll, Rinaker, Ritter, Shedd, Smulski, Swift, Thompson, Walker, Wilson — 27. THE CHAIRMAN: Quorum present. The minutes will stand approved. Any correction will be made at the members’ request. Page 133 of the new draft, Article XVI. I MR. POST: Mr. President, I would like to know if the new draft changes the phraseology at all of that section? THE CHAIRMAN: No, sir. MR. POST: The new draft is just now in my possession and I don’t know what’s in it. THE CHAIRMAN: It doesn’t change it in any way. THE SECRETARY: Page 133, of the new draft. Article XVI, Public Utilities. One. Two. MR. RAYMER: Mr. Chairman, didn ’t we dispose of that section at the last meeting? THE CHAIRMAN: We will dispose of it MR. RAYMER: All right; I desire to bo recorded on that proposition, no. March 1 1142 1907 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Raymer re- corded on that no. Proceed. MR. LINEHAN: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Sir? MR. LINEHAN: That is the law of the state of Illinois. THE CHAIRMAN: He wants to be recorded no. MR. RAYMER: I beg your pardon, what is that Mr. Linehan? MR. LINEHAN: I say that is the law of the state of Illinois. MR. RAYMER: The right to operate all public utilities. THE CHAIRMAN: No. 2. THE SECRETARY: No. 2, page 14. MR. POST: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Post. MR. POST: I would like to ask at this meeting — I shall address myself first to the section as it is reported and in connection with the provision that was passed for consideration until we should come — the consideration of this question, namely, the provision Article 2 . THE CHAIRMAN: Page 20 of the new draft. MR. POST: Page 23 of the old draft. THE CHAIRMAN: 21 of the new draft. MR. POST: Taking these two sec- tions together there is a requirement for a percentage that makes it, under the most liberal circumstances, almost impossible to get a referendum peti- tion, and in connection with that per- centage we now have conditions so strict in regard to the petition that it would be practically impossible to get it into the time limited, if at all. Now, Mr. Chairman, this raises the question of initiative and referendum. With regard to that question, this con- vention is holding back the charter of the city of Chicago in the direction in which the municipalities of the states of the country are going; and, it is no new thing; for 75 or 100 years that has been the tendency, not so strong as latterly, but very distinct in the legislation of the country, in the direc- tion of the principle of the initiative and of the referendum; that is to say, of the principle of having a representa- tive government under such restrictions as to the representatives that they shall be representatives and not misrepresen- tatives. Under such restrictions as that, and under reasonable circumstances, the people, we may say of any nation, may say that the representatives propose to put into law — we veto this measure; and, any measure that the representa- tives refuse to put. into law, we demand that this be put into law. That has been the trend in this country for nearly a hundred years and it has now become very strong, and we are holding it back in this charter of' ours. We have it in several of the Rocky Mountain states, it is about to be intro- duced in Texas, and we have it munici- pally in Detroit, Mich., and we have it in Denver and other places; but, we are now proposing to throw restrictions about the referendum and the initiative so that the people cannot make use of it — we are holding back instead of go- ing forward, just as we held the home rule qualities of the charter; we are now making what we call a home rule charter, but we have got it so tied up with leading strings from Springfield that it requires a microscope to find the home rule qualities in the charter. After having cut out all the initia- tive and referendum features in any general form, practically, in the char- ter, we come to one principal place where .allowance is made, not initiative but for a referendum in veto of the ac- tion of the council. We find in this section that I am now speaking of, that the city council by a March 1 1143 1907 bare majority may at any time give away to private corporations the most valuable property of the public; I say of the public, and I say that for the purpose of making a distinction: The most valuable property, not of the city as a corporate body, but of the street car riding public, of the people, of the great mass of the people, who are using public utilities, we give to the city council by a bare majority vote at any* time the right to give away on any terms that they please for twenty years these public rights. And, then the only popular safeguard we put about it is a referendum, which must be on a petition, the burden of which is thrown upon the people themselves who are about to be swin- dled, or who may be swindled by a ma- jority of the city council, a referendum of 20 per cent, or over 80,000 signa- tures of the people, in order to protect these public rights from a vote of an improvident majority in the city coun- cil. And, not satisfied that it should be 80,000 signatures we then propose to make a provision, as is in this draft, which shall make it practically impos- sible to get these 80,000 signatures within the time required; i. e., sixty days. In other words, this section as it now stands proposes that a majority of the council may vote away these rights, and that vote shall stand in suspense for 60 days; that, if this almost impossible petition is then presented, there shall be a further suspension until a popu- lar vote, and if the vote is against the giving away of the property, then, and only then, shall the action of the coun- cil be vetoed. Now, Mr. President, we are told, and this bears upon the character of the pe- tition required — we are told that we want clean petitions; we are told that that is the motive of requiring this great strictness, which is the basis of this great percentage; that we want clean petitions. Well, gentlemen, we all know that the petitions in this city have been clean; you all know that there have been enough signatures, genuine signa- tures of voters, to make the petitions good under the law, high as is the per- centage that is required, and the vote proves it. When the vote came it was always in the majority, and there was always a much larger vote than there were petitioners. And you know well that the petitions now pending before the people were got by honest means. I am with you when you say that ef- forts were made to make these petitions that are now pending, false petitions, and saturated with fraud; that is true. There was an attempt and no one knows better than some of the men on this floor how far that attempt was carried and bow near it came to being success- ful. There was an attempt to make these petitions, to saturate these peti- tions, with fraud, so that they might be denounced by the newspapers from one end of the country to another, as fraudu- lent petitions. Fradulent petitions were imposed upon the public officials here, and on account of the vigilance of the public officials those fraudulent signa- tures were eliminated from the petition as it stands. And, Mr. President, it was tried to falsify this pending petition, and the men who are howling against the circulation of the petition with fraud, and among them were the same newspapers and the same men who are now clamoring for clean petitions. Now, let us not fool ourselves. We can- not fool the public. There is no use trying it. Let us not fool ourselves. The real motive for this great strict- ness with regard to these petitions and with regard to this referendum was declared frankly by Mr. Shedd in the committee room where the matter was under discussion, where he said: “We March 1 1144 1907 want to, or we ought to make referen- dum voting difficult. ” There is the explanation, and I honor Mr. Shedd for having come out frankly and candidly in giving the real reason for this attempt to make referendum voting on this traction matter, and other matters practically impossible. "We want to make referendum voting difficult. ’ 7 That is a motive that the people of this city will understand, let me tell you. And let me predict, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, one thing more: I can- not see any further into next week than anybody else, but I do not think I am very far wrong, and I think you gentle- men will admit it in your hearts when I say the gentlemen of this city will realize what this means if it goes in in this way. We have now got trac- tion petitions up for a vote before the people, and the people — to the number of 200,000, at least — have asked it, that a vote of the people be placed upon the granting of these traction fran- chises. If that is voted down, that is if the franchises are voted down at the com- ing election, you have got them in this charter, you have this question of the proposition, you have the proposition that a majority of the city council, if the mayor happens to be favorable, and two-thirds if the mayor is opposed to granting an outright franchise to these gentlemen and allowing their manipu- lation of the street rights, and you have a referendum then that will practi- cally prevent a veto. You cannot make that veto effective if that is done, unless you get on this clause the 20 per cent or eighty odd thousand within sixty days, and on a provision that every separate sheet of signatures shall be verified under oath THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Post, your time has expired. (Cries of “continue, continue . ”) THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Post has unanimous consent to continue. MR. POST: Thank you, gentlemen; it will take little time, and it seems to me the subject demands it. You then have a grant outright to these companies, which can be stopped only by a petition of 80,000 upon sheets of paper, every sheet of which must be verified under oath as containing the names which the verifier swears that he has signed, and that he believes the signer is the proper person. Now, why all of this, gentlemen? It is not the petition that determines the question; it is not that makes the veto ; it is the vote. What you are putting up here is not a protection to the voter who wants to vote for what the council may do, but an obstruction to allowing him to vote. I have seen clean petitions, and while I think they will be clean petitions, the petition is of less importance — a less important fact, it is the fact that there is a vote itself after the petitions are in. The petition does not veto the ordi- nance as it may be passed, all the pe- tition does is to give the people a right to veto it afterwards, and even if your petitions were clean, the people would not vote upon the proposition upon the petitions merely because the petitions were there. The point is to get a hear- ing. Now, if we reduce it even to 10 per cent you have to get 40,000 to reduce it; and if 5 per cent you have to get twenty odd thousand. You have got only the petition, the Chairman has shown it, if we have it as low as 20 per cent the Socialists could get up any- thing, because they have got 20,000 votes, and if they voted on that, every one of them, they could carry it. Sup- pose the Socialists did bring forward a proposition, even if the majority did not, if the majority did not want what Maich 1 1145 1907 the Socialists voted for, they can go on and vote it down and we wouldn’t get it. There is no more reason why the Socialists should put up anything more than anybody else. You are afraid to have the Socialists with the 20,000 votes, vote on the traction propo- sition, still you are afraid to have that done, and yet you give the Socialists a right to have full party machinery, a full set of candidates, and all of that — • all of that expense, all of that time, and after all, the percentage you are de- manding here from the people. I want to be fair to the nominees. If the convention brings forward a vote for its nominees, or brings forward a vote of — I cannot say the exact amount, but I think it is 8 per cent, or certainly a per cent lower then it becomes a party, and it is entitled to a primary and you make no objection. Yet you want 20 per cent under strict rules in order to pass the veto for the referen- dum, to pass before the public in order to get the public to agree. I stand for the position that should not be so ready to give away public property and be so unready to throw obstacles in behalf of the people around the giving away of public property. We are very solicitous about the petition; that it may have some false names on it in order to au- thorize us to vote, but we are not so solicitous about protecting the property rights of the people of the city. But when we come down to the real ques- tion, when we come down to the real essence of the matter in connection with this charter and question, we shall find that it is not a question so much of petition as of something else. There should be no petition required in a case of this kind. If the council thinks it wise to give away the public property to a private corporation the burden then should be on the council to get the support of the people. The burden should not be thrown upon the citizens to take time and trouble in order to get the people to sign a petition. It should not be up to the people, and it should not be so constructed that you can hardly get the opinion of the people. I want to, in this connection, to compare section 2, on page 115 of the old draft, with section 8, on page 118 of the new draft — page 118 of the old draft, and see if that doesn’t make a suggestion as to why you are so anxious to have these re- strictions here, to excuse the city coun- cil by a majority or the mayor, to give away public franchises to try the indi- viduals. By section 8, the people them- selves cannot take over the public ope- ration unless the council not only passes the ordinance, but the council itself provides for a referendum. When you are dealing with the question of whether we shall have public operation or not, you allow the council to require a 'ref- erendum, and there can be no public operation, unless the public agree and the people agree. It is not a question of the veto. It is a question of affir- mants by the people. Although the en- tire city council voted for municipal operation of public franchise they could not give us the public franchise; though the whole council and the mayor were in favor of it. It is impossible to give it away; they must submit it to a vote and then it cannot be adopted unless two-thirds of the people vote for it. It does seem to me that you should not place so many obstructions in the way when you come to giving away this property. I think we should break these obstructions down. Why should you make it difficult for public spirited citizens to go out and get these petitions? Now, Mr. Chairman, there are two points involved here. In the first place, the council should not be allowed by a majority or otherwise to give away any public franchises without having the referendum instituted by itself appro v- March 1 1146 1J07 ing the act. That is the first point. Then I shall make my motion upon that and if my amendment should be voted down I want you to reduce the percent- age. I don’t care how strict the re- quirements if you put the percentage in a reasonable form. In case you de- feat my amendment, I want clean pe- titions, as well as you; but if you want strict requirements, then I wish you would bring the percentage down to a point where it will be easy for public spirited people to get this petition and not throw the great burden on them. I shall therefore move, with the right, if I am defeated in this motion, for myself or some one else to reduce the amount of percentage. I think the first vote should be on this. I move to strike out page 116 of the old draft. Strike out all the words be- ginning: “ Until 60 days after a,” in the fourth line, the second paragraph of the charter. Strike out all words beginning: “ Until 60 days after,” and ending at “ Shall not be affected” in- clusive. The effect of that motion if carried, would be, tfiat if the city coun- cil gives away public rights of this character itself, the gift shall not be effective until the question of granting such consent shall first have been sub- mitted to the public, and so on and so forth. In other words instead of leav- ing the people to get up a petition it requires the council, if it wants to give away public property to secure a ref- erendum vote on it before it is effective. I do not know that the language will key in exactly, but the committee can fix that. That is the substance of my motion that I make reserving the right to make a further motion as regards percentage. MR. FISHER: What is your mo- tion? THE CHAIRMAN: The matter is printed on page 116 of the new draft. THE SECRETARY: The old draft. THE CHAIRMAN: 116 of the new draft — no, the old draft. I beg pardon. What page on the new draft? THE SECRETARY: 114 of the new draft. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Post moves to strike out: “ Until 60 days after the passage of the ordinance therefore — ” (reading). Move to strike out those words. Are you ready for the question? MR. WHITE: I ask for information. If Mr. Post will define a little more carefully just what kind of properties he refers to. Does he refer to the grant- ing of franchises exclusively or is it to the disposition of any public prop- erty? MR. POST: Property mentioned under Section 2: “No person or cor- poration shall have the right ” (reading). And if it is for a period of longer than five years then the granting of any grant of that kind may be for five years or less without a referendum. But if for more than five years the council must not only pass the ordi- nance, must not only secure its appro- val by the people. Whereas under the section as it is, and that is the only change, the council may pass the ordi- nance, and it becomes effective in 60 days unless the people get up a peti- tion. MR. WHITE: It doesn’t affect the disposal of other form of property, be- longing to the school board and so forth? MR. POST: It only affects where the burden of having a referendum shall lie. THE CHAIRMAN: Only refers to public utilities. MR. HARRISON: Will Mr. Post answer a question? MR. POST: I don’t know that I can, but I will be glad to try to answer it. MR. HARRISON: Will Mr. Post have this apply to the small electric light franchises where a wire merely March 1 1147 1907 runs from one side of the street to another? There are a number of eases of that sort in the downtown district. MR. POST: I would like to ask whether there is any necessity for such grant being for longer than a period of five years? MR. HARRISON: In the old days we figured ten years was as little as any man would put in a plant of that sort and get the benefit he ought to have for the risk; we thought ten years was suitable on those grants. MR. POST: I suppose grants of that kind are really not public grants. On such matters it should be understood that a grant of five years should be given unless new conditions arise, that grant would be renewable. MR. HARRISON: In those public grants that a man gets a franchise for, he has the right of selling a surplus current to business men in an adjoin- ing block. MR. POST: They are very limited. It is the big ones that I want to get after. As far as the little ones are concerned they should be limited to five years. I want to get after the big grants which are mere evasion. MR. WHITE: I don’t care to dis- cuss this at length, but I want to dis- cuss my personal agreement with the amendment by Mr. Post. There is nothing unfair or unreasonable in it. As regards public utilities it imposes no unnecessary burden, it seems to me, upon the council and in very few in- stances, if any, would it unnecessarily delay such disposition of the public utilities. Therefore, I believe it would be only fair to leave the burden of this matter with the city council, for the passage of such an ordinance, instead of making it necessary for the citi- zens, cither organized or unorganized, to take the initiative in this rather bur- densome proposition. But, secondly, Mr. Chairman, I want to call your attention, and the atten- tion of this convention, to something that it seems to me is rather important for us to consider. We have now worked a year or more on this charter. We hope to get it passed in Springfield in some form or another, and we hope to get it back to the people and have it passed by the people. Now, I think, to say on the floor of this convention in the form of a threat, to state what the people of this city will do with this charter if this or that is not embodied in it, is bad taste, and that is not in accordance with my posi- tion; but you do want to take into consideration the temper of the people in regard to this particular thing and the incidental things involved with it. The sentiment of this city has been shifting very rapidly in the last five or ten years in regard to this matter of the referendum. The people are insisting more strenuously every year, that they shall have the means and motive and opportunity of having something to say upon matters of great public import- ance. Now, I really believe that, that being the sentiment of the city, you will find it pretty difficult to pass a charter that does not carefully pro- vide for that thing and meet the new and growing demand; and, if we can make any change in this charter that does not in any way necessarily inter- fere with the expedition of city busi- ness, that will meet this public demand that is increasing every year in this city, it seems to me as a mere act of wisdom on the part of this convention, that we ought to do it. Some of us, perhaps, ought to sink our personal feelings about the matter for the sake of the charter itself. T believe that any charter in this city, and T do not say this assuming that I have any right to speak for the voters of the city, or anything of the Mrrch 1 1148 1907 sort, certainly nothing in the way of a threat as to what will happen if cer- tain things are not done; but, just look- ing the thing squarely in the face, it does seem to me you will have some difficulty in passing a charter in this city that does not take care of the grow- ing demand of the people for the initia- tive and for the referendum. I think that whatever our personal opinions may be, perhaps we ought to subordi- nate them to the larger interests of the charter itself. First, I am in favor of this on princi- ple, personally, and I think, as a mat- ter of policy on the part of this conven- tion, this charter ought to be amended in those respects mentioned, and per- haps some others, so that it will be con- servative, and the people of the city will understand, and that it will serve that purpose which the people of the city desire, and which it seems to me are so strongly demanded. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? (Cries of “-Question. MR. MERRIAM: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Merriam. MR. MERRIAM: It appears to me that there are several objections to Mr. Post’s plan presented here. In the first place, it seems to me that you are absolutely wrong to require the city council to submit your referendum vote on every proposition that might be con- sidered as a grant to a utility — to a public utility corporation. You might have, as suggested, the mere grant of a privilege to stretch a wire under or across the street, or might have a very fragmentary extension of a gas plant or electric light plant, or might possi- bly have some stub end of a railway perhaps only a block or half a mile, or something of that sort. Every one of these propositions under this scheme would have to be submitted to the referendum vote of the people of the City of Chicago. Now, it occurs to me that this would really be defeating the purposes of the referendum itself. The chances are you will get so large a number of propositions presented from year to year that, in the first place, the citizen would have very little time to consider this great variety of questions; they will become indifferent and per- haps disgusted with the whole propo- sition. The people are anxious to and ought to have their rights to vote on the broad questions of public policy that are in- volved in any franchise of any consider- able purpose. I do not think they ought to have the right to vote on every franchise grant, whether considerable or inconsiderable, whether important or unimportant, and I very much believe that these propositions from year to year would throw the whole idea of a referendum into discredit, and that is the very purpose you do not want to have in mind. In the second place, I think a sharp distinction ought to be drawn between optional referendum and obligatory ref- erendum. Optional referendum on a cer- tain class of propositions, it seems to me, has a rather good effect on a legis- lative body. If the city council draw up a proposition that is endorsed by the people, it will have a good effect on them; no council likes to draw up a franchise grant, with considerable labor and trouble, and then have that grant overwhelmingly defeated by the peo- ple; so it puts them on their good be- havior never to draw up an improper grant and have it presented to the peo- ple. That portion of the referendum is good, that it gives the people a right to pass on that. An obligatory referendum has, it seems to me, a decidedly opposite effect. The city council says, after all, this matter comes up to the people, and after all it is not for us to decide, it March 1 1149 1907 does not matter what we say about it; the law requires that before this goes into effect the people should pass upon it, and then in a certain way the re- sponsibility is taken away from them, and they believe in passing anything, and the people will decide that, any- way, and that relieves the council of that responsibility, and the council thinks it is only a subordinate body. I am very strongly of the opinion that there ought to be an optional refer- endum, and on this optional referendum the low percentage of signatures re- quired — that it ought to be much lower than we have here. I am also of the opinion that Mr. Post’s proposition will defeat his own purpose of presenting a referendum, and have the referendum have a bad effect on the council itself. MR. POST: I would like to ask Mr. Merriam a question. I would like to know, Mr. Merriam, with reference to piling up the referendums on small grants such as you have enumerated, whether the provision here, that no grant may be made for five years with- out a referendum is not enough, where it is necessary that such grant should be made for only the five years, and why it is not right that they should be sub- ject to renewal every five years, in- stead of being made for twenty years. MR. MERRIAM: I see no reason, Mr. Post, why the city council should not have the right to grant an electric light privilege, or something of that sort, for a period of twenty years. In a very important matter, a connecting link of a mile or"so in a street railway system, or a gas or electric light plant, where it is of sufficient importance to get the vote on it, it is all right. If you make it absolutely obligatory to have a referendum on all of these things you will certainly throw the whole mat- ter into disrepute. MR. POST : Well, say all or more than five years’ duration. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? (Cries of 1 1 Question. ”) THE CHAIRMAN: Upon Mr. Post’s motion to strike out, the Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Burke, Greenacre, Guerin, Lin- ehan, MacMillan, McGoorty, Michaelis, O’Donnell, Owens, Post, Yopicka, White, Wilkins, Zimmer — 14. Nays— Badenoch, Bennett, Church, Cole, Dixon, G. W., Dixon, T. J., Eck- hart, B. A., Eidmann, Fisher, Gans- bergen, Harrison, Hill, Hoyne, Hunter, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Merriam, Pendarvis, Raymer, Robins, Rosenthal, Sethness, Shanahan, Shepard, Snow, Sunny, Taylor, Werno, Young — 30. (During roll call.) MR, BEILFUSS: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Beilfuss. MR. BEILFUSS: Mr. Chairman, I came in late; I am not quite clear on this. THE CHAIRMAN: Have you the new or the old draft there? MR. BEILFUSS: I guess I have. I would like a distinction made between where it will grant a referendum — a distinction certainly should be had by the city council. We have had a great many of those similar matters men- tioned here, and I do not think we want any referendum on that at all. I am not clear, and I therefore do not care to vote at this time until that is cleared up. MR. COLE: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIR: Mr. Cole. MR. COLE: I would like to explain my vote. I am a believer in the refer- endum. I think it is the coming way of expressing the public opinion, and public opinion is what governs this country and always will; but I believe also that when it comes to an applica- tion, you have got to take into consider- ation conditions. This charter, and all charters, have to be a matter of com- March 1 1150 1907 promise. We have got to have a char- ter that will pass at Springfield and also will he passed by the people of Chicago, because it has to come to both bodies just as they are, and I doubt very much if a majority of this convention, I doubt very much if a majority of the legislators, and possibly a majority of the people, stand ready for so thorough a referendum as is sug- gested by the motion of Mr. Post. I am willing to accept a compromise, and while I am on my feet I merely want to say, further, that I believe in safeguards for referendums. If we make this safeguard for referendums, we must make a very much smaller per- centage than they now have. That is my position on the matters in con- troversy, and why I vote no on the proposition. THE CHAIRMAN: On Mr. Post’s motion to strike out the ayes are 14 and the nays are 30, and the motion to strike out is lost. MR. GREENACRE: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Greenacre. MR. GREENACRE: I move to amend by striking out one word, the word 1 ‘ twenty, ’ ’ in the twentieth line of Section 2, Article XVI, on page 14, and substitute instead of the word * twenty” the word “two, ” and on that I want to be heard for a moment. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard Mr. Greenacre ’s motion to substitute the word “two” for the word “twen- ty.” Mr. Greenacre has the floor. MR. GREENACRE: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Convention: This is now the optional referendum. My reason for making that “two” instead of “twenty” is this: Gentlemen, with a vast political experience — and I use the word “political” in no derogatory sense of the word; it is the most ex- alted sense — men whose business it has been to handle public affairs, and to consider the question of how and of what percentages the people should be heard, by an act of the legislature, in fact, have two as the proper prcentage, and I believe that if two per cent is enough, as is provided by this charter, and by the on recommendation of the committee of this charter, and it evidently has been the sense on the part of the members of this Convention that two per cent of the Republican party or the Democratic party, on pe- tition for nomination at a primary elec- tion, is sufficient to compel eonsiderat- tion for a name for an office, then I think two per cent of the citizens, if that is held a sufficient per cent for consideration of a man, that should be held to be sufficient percentage for con- sideration of not merely a man but a principle, which in our organized gov- ernment is a larger matter than a mere man. If a man can come up and be con- sidered, only a name, it seems, to my mind, that is subordinate to principles involved. Now, if you can force a man’s name upon the primary ballot by a vote of two per cent of his party or of his dis- trict or of his ward, why have I not in that the key to the feelings of the members of this Convention and those practical, learned men who have given this matter so much consideration. Why shouldn’t it be a low percentage on a more important matter, to wit: a principle; nor do we confine ourselves on primary matters to two per cent. I find that in all larger subdivisions, in all cities or organizations of states above 5,000, that two per cent is recog- nized as the proper percentage on a pe- tition. In organizations of less than 5,000, that is, in a city of less than 5,000, or a district of less than 5 , 000 , then it says that the petition shall be signed for selecting a man or submit- ting his name to the voters at election. The question is then submitted: Shall he or shall he not be voted for or March 1 1151 1907 against? The percentage then is five per cent. Now, no subdivision of this city ex- ists that has not over 5,000; no ward or district that I know of but which contains more than 5,000 inhabitants, and hence rights, in the matter of voters, which is the matter which should govern, especially in the will of the people, is above 5,000, either in a city or a political subdivision, pro- vided for in our old law of 5,000, or five per cent; therefore the five per cent provisions of our state do not seem to apply to the city of Chicago, or any of its subdivisions; not even to a ward. And the two per cent which they have laid down as the percentage to a pe- tition, or to a question, to submit it, as being the proper percentage in larger organizations, applies very well in this city. It seems to me that the people who have approved and acted under these statutes, and they have worked well, have shown, and their representatives have shown, and our experience has shown us that the whole trend of our legislation and of our public govern- ment indicates that two per cent is the proper figure to be considered here. Now, if that is so, I reason from analogy when I insist that it would not be well for us to depart from the beaten path which they have laid down for us in the matters of options, referendum or initiative. The petition to put a man ’s name on the ballot is something of initiative. We have initiative in various forms, and have had it for years in our laws as to compulsory action, according to the pe- tition of a certain percentage. In the country towns the public parties are compelled, it is provided, that certain percentages shall present petitions for certain matters. We now have before us this referendum, and it seems to me to be the whole trend of our legislation, as far as we can gather it from anala- gous things, that two per cent is the proper amount. Now, then, tell me why, if that per- centage has been practical heretofore, has operated well, and has not worked hardship nor become a burden, and has not disgusted the people, if they are disposed to have referendums and ex- pressed themselves on public opinions, if that sentiment has not decreased, but has increased, we can see that two per cent has not flooded them with a burden of referendums; it has not proved that. It has not been proved in- operative and it has not been proved burdensome; it has, according to our experience, proved the justness of two per cent. Those are my reasons for selecting the two per cent as the basis for my amendment. Many of you have ex- pressed yourselves as being in favor of an optional referendum. Here it is. There is a question of decrease. Should there be any subsequent amendment or suggestion adopted of ten, fifteen or twenty per cent, as seems to be indi- cated by other portions of this charter in one I notice fifteen per cent pro- vided for, and in another twenty, on questions of this kind. Then let me ask you why, if our legislation provides that five per cent * shall only be required in small com- munities and the two per cent in our larger communities, why do you insist now on a larger per cent in a larger community? Much larger, and three of four times larger. It is four times larger than the state provides in a smaller community as it is now writ- ten in this draft, and the state recog- nizes the larger the community the less the percentage. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman, there is an apparent difference in this Convention with reference to the refer- endum, and the terms bv which refer- March 1 1152 1907 endum shall be provided by the peo- ple, not only as to the detail, but as to the principle. For myself, I believe that the best service is obtained for the public, and the best thing is obtained in all respects by adhering to the representative form of government, by placing upon a duly elected and qualified public official the responsibility for his official acts. In my judgment that obtains the more for good government than divided re- sponsibility; a shifting of responsibil- ity from the public official elected to the people who are not responsible, to the official nor to anyone else. There are those who believe the exact oppo- site; that school is probably best rep- resented in the address given by Mr. Post, the logic of which appears to me to be that initiative, in the referendum, the ultimate decision must come to the people, whether they understand the proposition or not, and the duly elected and qualified official is reduced simply to the performance of a ministerial function. We must recognize this, how- ever — at least, I bring myself to recog- nize the fact — that there are two di- vided schools of opinion, not only in this community, but in this Conven- tion. The proposition of referendum is now a proposition of this community — an established proposition. There seems to be no disposition to do away with it entirely. It then resolves itself into the simple question as to the restric- tions and the provisions by which the referendum shall be submitted to the people and upon what questions. It seems to me the draft of this charter, as so carefully worked out, is the best result — that it could bring about the best result. But, upon this question of percentage, it might be wise for those of us who stood for a higher percentage earlier in the proceedings of this convention to recede somewhat from our positions. I am prepared to do that, in view of the statement that the petition shall be, so far as possible, verified and signed only by those who are qualified to sign such a petition. With that in view, I move you, Mr. Chairman, as a substitute for Mr. Greenacre ’s motion, that: The word “ten’* be substituted for the word “two. " THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the motion of Mr. Shepard, as a substitute for Mr. Greenacre ’s mo- tion, that “ten" be substituted for “twenty" instead of “two." MR. POST: This is not a matter for substitution or for amendment. As I understand parliamentary procedure in matters of this kind, this is simply in the nature of filling a blank, and as many motions may be put as there are differences of opinion in the conven- tion, and on pntting the motion, the motion should proceed from the lower to the higher figure, seriatum. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair can- not agree with Mr. Post. The matter was printed as twenty, and Mr. Post moved to amend it by making it two, and then Mr. Shepard moved as a sub- stitute that it should be made ten. MR. POST: Mr. Greenacre. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Greenacre moved to make it two, and Mr. Shep- ard now brings the matter up as an amendment to an amendment, and that is the amendment; that would be in order, until the matter is disposed of. MR. SNOW: There seems to be some misapprehension among the members of the Convention as to the object of the charter provision outlined here, cover- ing the question of the manner in which a petition shall be secured as placing burdensome restrictions upon the secur- ing of the signatures. That apparently is the burden of Mr. Post’s argument. That is the burden of the argument March 1 1153 1907 presented by Mr. Greenacre, and even among some who have believed in a higher percentage there seems to be an opinion that there are additional provisions here safeguarding the hon- esty of the petitions. If the members of this Convention will examine Section 9, and Chapter 2, page 21, of the new draft, they will find that for all practical purposes there is no additional provision for safe- guarding the honesty of petitions that are filed. The only requirement is that each signature shall be signed by a per- son in person, or that there shall be an affidavit relating either to the indi- vidual signature or to a group of signa- tures, if you please. But the wording of the section as such on that affidavit does not mean anything. It does not require an affidavit that it is signed by the man whose name is there. It is simply an affidavit on the part of the man circulating the petition that he be- lieves the signatures are genuine, and that he verily believes that those names are the names of qualified voters. MR. MERRIAM: Read it. MR. SNOW: Do you desire to ask a question? MR. MERRIAM: No, read it. THE CHAIRMAN: He wants you to read it. MR. SNOW (after reading the pro- visions) : He believes the signatures to be the signatures of the persons who have their names there, and that they are genuine. Now, Mr. Chairman, I submit to the members of this Conven- tion that the purpose of the optional referendum is to enable public senti- ment to find expression where that pub- lic sentiment exists to any considerable extent. Under our form of govern- ment, representative government, the power of the people to pass legislation is delegated to their representatives. I am one who believes that the optional referendum is desirable and is a useful adjunctive element, because it enables the people themselves to check any hasty or ill-considered legislation; but I do not believe that that check should be put into effect unless there is a con- siderable public sentiment, or public sentiment considerable enough to be in- dicated by a respectable percentage of the voters in asking for that privilege of veto. The impression seems to prevail in some quarters that the referendum and the petition securing it is for the pur- pose of enabling a small coterie of pro- fessional agitators to foist their views on the public and demand for it. I don’t subscribe to that belief. I be- lieve that percentage should represent a respectable portion, at least, in num- bers of the total vote. If the percent- age is cut down to one or two per cent, or a percentage of that kind, it simply means that individuals for their own personal aggrandizement, or possibly with motives that will not bear the light of day, will insist upon putting before the people a referendum upon every question passed by the represent- atives of the people, or the council, or by the legislative body under dis- cussion. Mr. Greenacre points to the fact that we only require two per cent in some cases to place a man’s name upon the ballot. That is true, and that is a desirable provision, because it en- ables the people to secure a larger number of names upon the ballot, in order that they may have a wider choice when it comes to choosing their public officers. Personally I think it is made low, therefore — that it is made low for that reason. Now, as a matter of fact, in those countries in which the referendum has been most highly developed, and where it originated, in Switzerland, in the va- rious cantons of Switzerland, there are provisions safeguarding the rights of the petition which are far more drastic March 1 1154 1907 and far more severe than any sug- gested in this Convention or in the dis- cussion of the question by the people of the City of Chicago. We are adopting a plan which has been worked out there, but we are fail- ing to adopt the safeguards which they have found essential, and which they have worked out. The number of names required in the various Swiss cantons vary from one-twelfth of the vote to one-fifth; and, as a rule, those names must be had at an election place or before an election official. All men desiring to sign the petition must prove their right to sign this petition as quali- fied voters, exactly as they prove their right to vote at any election. The whole machinery of securing petitions is made a governmental function, but as you have left it here it is a volun- tary act of individuals or associations of individuals. ME. POST: May I ask a question? ME. SNOW: Certainly. ME. POST: Is Mr. Snow willing to have this charter so arranged that the getting of the petition shall also be a governmental function? ME. SNOW: I will be glad to have this charter so arranged that the sign- ing of the petition must be done before election officials. 1 would be very glad to have that done. ME. POST: On the governmental supervision? ME. SNOW: Provided it would be before an election commissioner. ME. POST: That was the purpose of my motion which Mr. Snow voted against. MB. SNOW: I fail to see the point. Youx motion was that there may be a referendum as follows: (Beading.) With that I fail to agree, but T believe an optional referendum should be secured with same safeguards under govern- mental function that the right of suf- frage is secured. Now, Mr. Chairman, just for a moment speaking of the Swiss methods. When the signature method is adopted there is another method of parole, approving of the pe- tition, before an election official in an election vicinity. When a person re- quires to sign, the provision is that there shall be an endorsement of the petition, and he must come before an officer, or, rather, head man, in the same precinct. He must prove a right the same as in any other election. Now, a safeguard of that kind, or some- thing in that nature, in my judgment, should be adopted in connection with the referendum here. I believe that the haphazard method of securing pe- tions, as a matter of fact, tends to de- feat the real object of the referendum. If it could be done I would be very glad to see this section or this provision re- ferred back to the drafting committee, with instructions to further safeguard the petition than they have done, and to put it entirely in the hands of the public officials, or the public election officials. ME. EOBINS: I ask the unanimous consent that Mr. Snow be allowed the privilege of continuing. (Cries of “Consent.”) ME. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe there is anything further I care to say at this time. I have covered the matter, as I see it. The main thing is that there should be an optional ref- erendum; optional, not obligatory. Sec- ondly, that the referendum should be brought about as an honest expression of the desire of the people of Chicago to have a referendum on that subject, not forced upon them. MB. FISHEB: Mr. Snow did not ex- press himself, Mr. Chairman, as to whether he was for or against the pend- ing motion, and I had hoped that we would ascertain that fact, because it is my hope that this amendment of ten March 1 1155 1907 per cent would be adopted unanimously by this Convention. In a matter of this kind it is neces- sary to make compromises between peo- ple who believe in percentages. No percentage would be adopted which the membership of this Convention, or the membership of the State Legislature, or the people of Chicago would be en- tirely' satisfied with. There would nec- essarily be a difference of opinion upon the number of percentages adopted. It seems to me than ten per cent is a figure upon which we should all unite, and that we should do it unanimously, because we can fairly expect that the state legislature would accede to your request if that percentage were fixed. The legislature would be more likely to do that for the excellent reason that it is the percentage already fixed by that body in the Mueller law, which went through the storm and stress of political and popular discussion before it became a part of our statutes. That Mueller law provided for a ten per cent, and if we propose a larger per cent would meet very stringent consid- eration, under the belief that it will in- crease the burden; and that is the per- centage under that law which has been overwhelmingly approved by the people of this city. Mr. Greenacre’s suggestion of two per cent is wholly fallacious Mr. Snow has pointed out the reason. If there are five candidates there must be a two per cent, both at primary and general. There must be two per cent of voters who have signed the petition to put a man in nomination. Two per cent of voters must be sent in to secure the nomination, and unless that percent- age of voters sign the petition, thev cannot secure a candidate. So that five candidates put in nomination at a pri- mary election is equal to ten per cent. MR. MERRIAM: How about the genera] election? MR. FISHER : We are talking about the primary elections. Let us not stop. Let us get right down to the point in question of the primary elections. At general elections we simply follow the rule prescribed before, and recognize the fact that petitions for nominations should be made extremely easy. You are going to have your elections any- way. It requires no additional expense; you do not require a separate ballot. It does not compel anything. The gentlemen seem to wholly misun- derstand the character and intention of the optional referendum, and that is a peculiar difficulty for me to understand in a man who believes in the initiative; because the optional referendum is the referendum that applies to the theory of the initiative. It is the only the- ory that is consistent with the perma- nent maintenance of representative gov- ernment. If you are going to apply the theory of representatives of the democracy and distinguish between them, you debar the democracy. You must compel the legislature to go to the people in all events. You must give the people an opportunity, under fair treatment, to exhaust the veto power — the popular veto, which is a power pro- vided under the optional referendum. I do not concur at all with Mr. Post’s analysis of the present situation in this city, and I take this opportunity to record my dissent from him on that point. I believe in the referendum, and I signed the pending petition and favored its adoption and suggested the question which was put upon the petition. And yet I believe the people in this city will, by an overwhelming vote, sustain the traction ordinances that are now be- fore them for consideration; but I be- I lieve in the referendum. I believe in the referendum now; I believe in a proper referendum. I believe in a per- centage of a vote which will not be bo March 1 1156 1907 small that any organized body can unite and agitate for motives which may not have anything whatever to do with the particular question under con- sideration, as the Parnellites did in the English parliament for purposes of agi- tation to accomplish some object which was foreign to the particular bill and purpose under discussion. I believe in a petition which will be sufficiently large in percentage to accomplish the result we desire, and that cannot be done on less than ten per cent, in my judgment. Ten per cent will be ap- proximately 40,000 signatures — 35,000 to 40,000 signatures — upon the petition, which is a sufficient number to indi- cate that a section of the people will not get together, and that a sufficient number will get together to agitate that question until they do represent a respectable element, and represent a considerable proportion of the com- munity. Now, in regard to the point made by Mr. Snow, I think he has failed en- tirely to meet the provisions on pages 21 and 22, in regard to the verification of signatures. It would be all right if we were to adopt the Swiss system in its entirety, with the provisions for certain compulsory legislation, and up- on legislation of a certain kind; for pe- titions orally, referring to matters and under conditions which exist there and do not exist here; and for the other requisitions, such as they work out in their law, where it is easy enough for the people to get up a petition if they care, of that character, signed before an election commissioner. As easy as it is for men to circulate among the Swiss cantons and hills for the purpose of getting up a petition. But that is not consistent with the theory we have, and the machinery which we have in this particular city, that very radically change an amendment of those provi- sions. The greater permanency of elec- tion officials, permanent conditions; there are conditions there which do not exist here. If we had greater per- manency of election officials, permanent conditions, places where people could go ordinarily, divisional headquarters for civic activity; when those things come the poliey of the referendum could be adopted to them, as it is in the Swiss cantons. But today we must meet conditions as they exist. Indi- viduals representing organizations cir- culate petitions wherever it is left to the people. Now, under those circumstances it is obvious that the men who circulate the petition can only know one of two things: He should know whether or not the signature that is signed to the pe- tition is, in fact, genuine; whether he sees it signed, or whether he doesn’t see it signed. If he makes an affidavit to the effect that it is the genuine sig- nature of the party, he is open to where he can be convicted of perjury if his affidavit is false, 'which is all the safe- guard anyone has. And if he makes that affidavit, that should be sufficient as to the particular signature. He must be able to make an affidavit; but he may not be able to make an affidavit if he has not seen the man sign. But if he has seen an individual sign the pe- tition and swears that he verily be- lieves the signature is genuine, you will then have all that you can proper- ly require under existing conditions. And you will have this safeguard, that if a man has not seen an individual sign, under certain circumstances, it raises the presumption that it was false, and he can be convicted of perjury and sent to state prison. No man, if he has seen it — has not seen, the circumstances would raise a presumption that it was false. We know absolutely there are signatures that are known on the face to be fraudulent; signatures bv boys; signa- March 1 1157 1907 tures by men who sign under circum- stances where you know the names are not genuine, to signatures that are signed by different persons in a room where there are a number of people that sign — now all of those things have been done ME. WHITE: I rise to ask a per- sonal privilege. THE CHAIRMAN: The first ques- tion is whether Mr. Fisher shall have leave to continue. ME. MacMILLAN : Mr. Chairman, I would like to get away and I would like to be recorded as voting nay on the ten per cent proposition. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacMillan asks the unanimous consent to be re- corded — I don’t know how that can be done; it has got to be done by the house. Has Mr. MacMillan the unani- mous consent? (Cries of “Consent.”) MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I ask a similar privilege; that is, I rise to vote aye on Mr. Fisher’s motion to make it ten per cent. (Cries of “Consent.”) THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fisher will continue. MR. FISHER: I have nothing fur- ther to say, Mr. Chairman, except that it seems to me that the safeguards which are now provided in this section are reasonable safeguards and will stop any gross abuse of the propositions, and are as fair as we can reasonably ask under the circumstances that exist in this city and in this country. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? MR. COLE: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cole. MR. COLE: Just a minute; perhaps if I can speak a minute it will save time. There is no use of talking any more about the rights or wrongs of this question. We have all made up our minds on that referendum, the referen- dum men are referendum men, and the non-referendum men are non-referen- dum men, and the question is, be prac- tical enough to get together, get some- thing that will pass with reasonable men. Now, it seems to me that with these safeguards to the referendum, if we take the twenty and cut that down to ten per cent then we will have some- thing — if we will cut from twenty to ten, then we will have something that may go through MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hill. MR. HILL: I am very much in fa- vor of the optional referendum; I be- lieve it is the proper check upon the legislature, but I believe it should not be exercised, it should be placed in such position or situation that it will only be exercised on matters of great public interest; matters of such interest that the whole people of the city are reasonably well posted upon the ques- tion, and I think whenever we happen to have half a dozen referendum votes or small ballots during one election it will cheapen the real object of the ref- erendum. We have some wheat among a lot of chaff usually. Now, I have seen it often, and probably every gentleman here has seen it at some time where there have been referendum votes that people have come to a voting place without any idea whatever on the ques- tion and have asked the first person they met how they voted on this or what this means. Now, these representatives are elect- ed by the people and they necessarily assume certain rsponsibilities to their people, and they have to give careful thought and consideration necessarily to the questions that are brought before them. They give their best judgment, and they study the question and give it their time and attention in order to ar- March 1 1158 - 1907 rive at a fair conclusion on the ques- tion, and when they vote they assume that responsibility. Now, I think if we are going to have a referendum, an optional referendum, it ought to be on questions of great public interest that will be taken up and discussed by the people generally, and by the newspapers, so that the or- dinary voter will have a fair knowledge of the question and assume a certain clegree of responsibility when he votes upon the question. We cannot do that upon the whole number; we cannot do it, if we know there are going to be half a dozen votes every election; but when we leave it in shape that questions of great pub- lic interest — when we leave it in that shape, the referendum may be used as a check upon the legislature, then it will be discussed generally, then the newspapers will discuss it, the people ■at large will have some idea on these things, and will assume some degree of responsibility. The question that Mr. Fisher illus- trates points admirably 'to the present traction ordinance; it has been discussed pro and con by the people and by the papers, and probably there are very few voters in the city of Chicago who have not heard of this and discussed it with their neighbors and read of it in the papers, and know of it and know that it is coming and assume some re- sponsibility. As far as the per cent is concerned, I would like to say from my personal ex- perience — personally I thought fifteen per cent was fair on a question of great public interest. I do not think you will have any difficulty in securing fif- teen per cent on those questions, and while I think an optional referendum is the right thing, I think we are going backwards instead of forwards to have several referendums at every election. I think it is a mistake, and I think we should so safeguard it that only the referendums are had on questions of great public interest, that these be presented to the people to override or concur in the decisions of their elected representatives in this representative form of government, where the repre- sentatives have taken the time and trouble and studied the question and compared conditions in other cities and states, which the voter generally does not, and when we place it in a position that we can group together some question of great public interest with a lot of oth- ers the people know nothing about, you are cheapening the whole proposition, and T think you are striking a body blow to the question of referendum. We should have an optional referen- dum, but I think it should be limited to questions of great public interest, where the ordinary voter has discussed the question and assumed some degree of responsibility. ME. POST: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Post. MR. POST: I think, Mr. Chairman, we have drifted somewhat away MR. T. J. DIXON: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dixon. MR. DIXON: I would like to have the same unanimous consent to cast my vote — I have that privilege, and I now ask to be recorded on that ten per cent THE CHAIRMAN: Will Mr. Dixon be back here at 2 o’clock? MR. DIXON: Yes, without fail. MR. POST: As I was about to say, Mr. Chairman, we seem to have drifted away from the point at issue. This is not a question you are about to vote upon now, it is not a question whether the referendum should be brought up; this question is, shall we make a refer- endum easy or difficult when the coun- cil proposes to give away great public franchises. That is the question; it is not whether March 1 1159 1907 we shall have a referendum on small things and all sorts of things, or shall we have a low petition — but shall we have a low petition on voting when great publie franchises are to be given to private parties. That is what we are voting on now, and I maintain that ten per cent is too much, altogether too much. I, too, am in favor of an op- tional referendum, but this particular question is purely a question whether or not the per cent to be made on all kinds of questions — not on all kinds of ques- tions, but two per cent on one particular kind of question — and you yourselves, as I have already indicated in the sub- sequent provision here, stultified your position in regard to the optional refer- endum. You want an optional referen- dum when the question is whether the council can give away public interests, but you don ’t want a referendum when the question is, shall the people have a right to operate the property them- selves? Now, Mr. Chairman, I am as much a compromiser as anybody, but I do not like to compromise, as an illustration of the lion and the lamb, when the lion compromises by taking the outside po- sition. You put an intolerable propo- sition of twenty per cent, and then you propose to cut it in half. You might as well make it fifty and propose to cut it in half. Upon that I rise to my point of order — is it good, fair, open? If you direct this as an amendment, then you have no choice to vote except between twenty and ten, and I think we ought to have a full choice to vote. Page 68, Mr. Chairman — we ought to have a full choice to vote, and my point is in voting figures like this is similar to filling blanks, and that rule in re- gard to filling blanks should prevail, so that as many different figures should be presented as represent the different views of it. In the Convention we are | governed by Roberts’ Rules of Order, page 68. THE CHAIRMAN: In view of that section, the Chair once more must hold that the gentleman’s point of order is not well taken; that means the filling of blanks, and the motion is to amend figures or words which are inserted. MR. POST: Just one word on that. It is just as important to compromise on five per cent, and not upon ten, and they will then have an opportunity to express themselves. Now, I do not care for the point of order, merely as a point of order, but I do want this Convention to consider the question of referendums on five per cent and not force us in the position where ten per cent is the low point. I am willing to compromise on five per cent, and might compromise on more. I am not willing to compromise on ten per cent because I do not regard it as a compromise to ask us to go out and get 40,000 signatures under those provisions, and when we vote here you ought to give us an opportunity to vote for a compromise. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will read the section: “To fill blanks are usually treated somewhat differently from other amend- ments. ” * * * The Chair is not aware that this is a blank. te * * * May propose, without a second, any number of votes for filling a blank.” In view of the reading of that point, the Chair rules the point is not well taken. MR. ROSENTHAL: I think, as Mr. Post says, it is not a question of com- promise, and I, therefore, move for the substitution of the pending proposition, the original motion. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is out of order. The Secretary will now call the roll on Mr. Shepard’s amend- ment to Mr. Greenacre’s motion. March 1 1160 1907 Yeas — Badenoch, Beilfuss, Bennett, Brown, Burke, Church, Cole, Dixon, G. W., Dixon, T. J., Eckhart, B. A.„ Eid- mann, Fisher, Gansbergen, Harrison, Hill, Hoyne, Hunter, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, MacMillan, MeGoor- ty, Merriam, Michaelis, 0 ’Donnell, Owens, Pendarvis, Baymer, Bobins, Sethness, Shanahan, Shepard, Snow, Sunny, Taylor, Yopicka, Werno, White, Wilkins, Young, Zimmer — 42. Nays — Greenacre, Guerin, Post, Bo- senthal — 4. (During roll call.) MB, GBEENACEE: A word of ex- planation. I would, in the spirit of compromise, be willing to rise above two per cent, but I am not willing to go to ten. I, therefore, vote no. MB. POST: For the reason given by Mr. Greenacre, I vote no. MB. BOfllNS: Believing that this is the most important feature of this char- ter, and the one that will most de- termine its adoption or rejection by the people, and in view of that, to me, the substantial compromise that has been made in this Convention by the gentle- men who differ from myself, and be- lieving that five per cent is sufficient, and for the further reason that I be- lieve when there is a full statement made upon the provisions shown upon pages 21 and 2 of the new draft, or old, I do not know which, that there will be a change made in that draft, which, in my judgment, is a fair change, and I vote aye. MB. BOSENTHAL: I rise to explain my vote. I believe that referendums should be used simply as a check upon vicious legislation. I think we have here a matter of principle and not a matter to be compromised. If we are going to have efficient legislative bod- ies, according to our former govern- ment, it seems to me that we must lodge that responsibility in the legislature or in the city council and elect men to those positions who will take care of those responsibilities. Now, with a twenty per cent referen- dum privilege, we have a sufficient check upon the viciousness of the legis- lature. I do not think the individual voter is at all suited to pass upon Con- crete measures, and while the present traction ordinances have been voted on as a sample of the things that ought to be presented to the people, I venture to say that in the case of the present traction ordinances 90 per cent of the people that will vote on that measure will know, as a matter of fact, what they are voting about. I, therefore, vote no on this proposition, because I am in favor of the original proposition of twenty per cent. ME. TAYLOB: Mr. President, I would like to explain my vote. While I favor a lower percentage, I think this is the lowest percentage we can get; and I, therefore, vote aye. THE CHAIBMAN: Upon Mr. Shep- ard’s motion the ayes are 42 and the nays are 4. The motion is carried. The Secretary will proceed to read from that section, from that article. MB. POST: On page 21 of the new draft there is a matter which we passed, in consideration of taking up this mat- ter. THE CHAIBMAN: On page 22 of the new draft. MB. POST: I do not make it as a point of order. I only thought it was overlooked. THE CHAIBMAN: That should come before the Convention now. MB. COLE: I move you, Mr. Chair- man, that 22 be passed as read here. THE CHAIBMAN: It has been moved and seconded that this paragraph be passed as printed. MB. BOBINS: That per cent is not an impossible number, or an unreason- able number, if there is a fair provision for securing signatures. March 1 1161 1907 “Each signer shall add to his signa- ture, which shall be in his own hand- writing. ’ ’ There is no man on the floor of this Convention who has had any experience in securing signatures but who knows that in the working men ’s districts of Chicago more than three-fourths of the men you speak to say 1 1 That is all right; I am in favor of that. Put down my name. ’ ’ And if the man has got to sign it himself, many times he will refuse; especially if there are two or three persons there — because he writes a bad hand; he feels ashamed about it; it puts him under a difficulty and a disad- vantage which should not exist. More than that, there are not a few voters in the City of Chicago whom you consider sufficiently qualified to say who shall be mayor, or shall pass upon all the important issues of public government, who cannot write their names. There is no requirement in the elec- tion laws of this state that require that a man shall write his name, and there should be no requirement in a people’s petition that the signer should sign his name himself. All that you can ask, or that is reasonable or fair, is that the signature should express the intent of that person to make this declaration as to the public policy, and his desire to get a vote upon this question. That is all that can be demanded. Are not the words “shall be in his own handwriting” — I want that changed to conform to the statement I have made. Then, Mr. Chairman THE CHAIRMAN: Will you state it? MR. ROBINS: I wish to state the whole case first and then I will make the motion afterward. THE CHAIRMAN: Very good. MR. ROBINS: (Reading.) “Each signature to the petition shall be veri- fied by a statement * * * or that he believes the signer to be a qualified voter, and either that he knows the sig- nature to be genuine, or that the same was made in his presence, and that he thoroughly believes the same to be gen- uine. ’ 1 Now, I want to ask a question of the law committee in regard to that. Does that mean that the signer must sign in the presence of this person who makes this verification? MR. FISHER: While the question is not directly addressed to me, I am a member of the law committee, and if the gentleman desires to direct his ques- tion to me, I should say, if I should un- derstand it, it means either one of two things; either the signer knows it is genuine MR. ROBINS: Or that he believes it is genuine. MR. FISHER: Knows. Or that it has been signed in his presence and he knows it is genuine. If he can make an affidavit that that is a genuine signa- ture, that is all. If he cannot do that, he must say that it was signed in his presence and he believes it to be genu- ine. M*R. BOBI NS: In my ward there happens to be a man who is very much interested in the referendum, and he has done as much as anybody I know of in the City of Chicago. He has a boy, sixteen years of age, who is a bright, honorable child, in my judg- ment. This boy goes out for the father; the father stays in his little store at night and cannot leave the home or the store. He sends this boy out, and this boy has gotten, to my personal knowledge, on the last referen- dum, 900 signatures in that ward alone. Now, every one of those signatures were genuine. Every one of those sign- ers had a perfect right to have the pe- tition brought to him in that form and signed, and all that was necessary was March 1 1162 1907 that this boy’s father, who was trust- ing his child, should be able to make an affidavit on the back of that petition that he verily believes each one of those signatures to be genuine. Now, you disqualify every boy in the City of Chicago, the son of the most responsible man, as well as the son of the irresponsible man, if you please — you disqualify every woman in the City of Chicago from securing signatures to a petition. MR. FISHER: No. MR. ROBINS: Don’t you? MR. FISHER: No. MR. ROBINS: Then I am wrong. MR. FISHER: The words “quali- fied voter. ’ ’ The women, I believe, are allowed to vote for trustees, and they are qualified voters. MR. POST: Qualified to vote on the petition? Wouldn’t that be necessarily inferred? MR. FISHER: I do not think so. I think it would be simply a question as to whether the phrase “qualified,” etc., would mean a qualified voter generally. I know of no decision on the question. If it does mean a qualified voter, she would be competent. MR. GREENACRE: Doesn’t it mean a qualified voter who can vote on that matter presented by the petition? MR. FISHER: No. MR. ROBINS: Gentlemen of the Convention: You are only interested in the petition being an honest petition. I am absolutely certain that that is the only interest Alderman Snow, for one person, has in this matter. Now, some of us who have been intimately associated in this work are as eager as you are to get a real honest protection to the petition, but we do not want to get anything that would disqualify the people from taking action on these mat- ters. Now, if these two changes were made, if it were made possible for any person who is circulating a petition to sign the name of the person on that person’s request that he should do so, which is the present law — and Alderman Snow said he did not wish to give ad- ditional prohibitions or make additional hardships that were not necessary to protection; and if the circulator can be a person who can be sought out and verified; now, that is the point. Here, for instance, on the back of your petition is signed that the circu- lator, as in the instance that I am thinking of — James Johnson — and that boy is 16 years old, and he is just as bright and intelligent as many a per- son that is 21, and he is doing this thing because he is asked to do it by his father, who is a qualified voter. Now, if he signs that statement, and his father signs that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, each one of those signers was a qualified voter — I would like to know if that will not give you men the protection you really want, and at the same time permit the circulation of petitions in the working men’s dis- tricts in the way petitions have to be circulated to a great degree? Now, one thing further. In many of the petitions that I have had some- thing to do with we have distributed the petitions around in the drug stores and in other places of common resort in the locality. Now, no one person is there all the time. It was put, in a number of cases, under the cigar light, and it was just left there, and the people who came in and bought cigars looked it over and signed it — and signed their names and their residences. Now, all we want to get is an honest petition. Why, if that blank were turned over and signed by the person who is here in this drug store — or the clerk as well — that to the best of his knowledge and belief those were signed by the persons who purported to sign March 1 1163 1907 them, now, is not that the protection vou want? I know something about forged sig- natures. In the last petition there was evidently a petition somewhere, and I wish to say I did not wish to accuse anyone, because I do not know. But I was advised on the Sunday before we Hied the petition that a plot to make the petition fraudulent was entered into. I saw, on a special petition that had been handed in at several police sta- tions in the city, one that had been held out by the captain because he believed it was fraudulent. I took that and looked it over, and found they were fraudulent. That was the reason I thought it was my duty, as a citizen, to go through that petition before it was Hied. I took out something over 300 sheets, and there were three well defined key marks on those sheets. One of those key marks was just over the word ^Name,” and it was a little dash; that dash ran through a series of sheets, and on investigation I discovered that persons had sent out those petitions, and, further, on investigation from sending out to the men whose names and addresses appeared on those pe- titions, we discovered from them that those names and addresses, as written, were fraudulent; the names on it were fraudulent. The purpose was to be able to go through the petition at random, take nut two or three sheets, and prove they were fraudulent, and prove every pe- tition was fraudulent. Having gone nver four petitions, I want to make this personal testimony for what it is worth: It was the best petition ever filed in the city. There were a few fraudulent names, but they bore more earmarks of being genuine, most of them. On every pe- tition there will be men who, in a spirit of joke, wall sign foolish names and give impossible addresses; that is just in the spirit of a joke, and you cannot get away from it. So, in every peti- tion on which the people of the City of Chicago are to act, we should know that there are a sufficient number of these signatures on them. I think, if you do not do this you will have an argument made against your charter which wall cost you a great many votes w r hen submitted to the peo- ple of this city, which is ill advised and unnecessary, in defeating the purpose to wilich the members of this Conven- tion wish to agree. Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish to move, first : That the drafting committee be in- structed to redraft Section 2-9, so as not to provide that it should be neces- sary for each signer to sign in his own handwriting; that each signature should be made in the handwriting of the person signing it. I w r ant it redrafted in the proper form to secure that, and they may do anything to secure that which would produce the proper result. I so move it, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you heady for the question? MR. G. W. DIXON: Question. THE CHAIRMAN : As many as are in favor of Mr. Robins ’ motion will vote aye; those opposed, no. The mo- tion is lost. What is your next amendment? MR. POST: I think we ought to have a roll call on that? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. The Secre- tary will call the roll on Mr. Robins 1 motion. Yeas — Beilfuss, Burke, Greenacre, Guerin, Linchan, McGoorty, Merriam, Owens, Robins, Sethness, Taylor, Zim- mer — 12. Nays — Badenoch, Bennett, Brown, Church, Cole, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, March 1 1164 1907 B. A., Eidmann, Fisher, Gansbergen, Harrison, Hill, Hoyne, Hunter, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Michaelis, O’Don- nell, Pendarvis, Post, Raymer, Rosen- thal, Shanahan, Shepard, Snow, Sunny, Vopicka, Werno, Wilkins, Young — 31. (During roll call.) MR. COLE: I wish to explain my vote briefly: I am in sympathy with Mr. Robins’ argument, but I am not in sympathy with his application of it. I think now is the time to compromise, and we are asking some people to vote for something they don ’t believe in, and it seems to me we can get along with those provisions as we have them there. For that reason I vote no. MR. FISHER: I think Mr. Robins has made one point that has merit in it: that a man who cannot sign his name shall be allowed to make his mark; that there ought not to be a dis- franchisement on the petition MR. COLE: That is signing his name legally, isn’t it? MR. SNOW: Isn’t it a legal signa- ture, signing his mark? MR, FISHER: It says: “Each signer shall add to the signature, which shall be in his own handwriting,” — that each signer shall add to his sig- nature his place of residence. Now, if he cannot write his name, he cannot add his signature, in the sense of writ- ing it himself. I think that sentence should be changed. I think that the people who are qualified to vote should be permitted to sign the petition. On the other hand, it seems to me that Mr. Robins’ amendment would throw the | petition open without any restriction whatever as to what kind of children should circulate the petition. It seems to me that is going too far in that di- rection. A reasonable provision, if one might be proposed, would be all right; but if we are going to rely on criminal prosecution to see whether these are | correct, it seems to me some other sug- | gestion than that suggested by Mr. Robins should be made. MR, ROBINS: I want it simply made to cover that point. That is all. THE CHAIRMAN: How does Mr. Fisher vote? MR. FISHER: On the motion, as it stands, I shall have to vote no. MR. LINEHAN: I would like to know if it were shown whether parties who were disfranchised were not per- mitted to sign, the signature would not be any good; whether that would not be jeopardized in the courts? As to the fact whether a man that could not write would not be permitted to make his mark. Now, if we had the words “or his mark,” it would simplify that mat- ter, and not disfranchise a fellow that cannot write. MR. HUNTER : That is the law now, Mr. Chairman. MR. LINEHAN: It is not so stated here. MR. MERRIAM: I understand Mr. Robins’ motion is to make it legally possible for a man that cannot write to come in on one of these petitions? MR. ROBINS: Precisely. MR. MERRIAM: I understand that is not the case with this draft here. I was thinking it would be a pretty hard thing on the man who cannot write not to allow him to sign the petition. I vote aye. MR. O’DONNELL: I believe that the signature of a cross is a signa- ture; it probably would have to be written, whether this law says so or not. I vote no. MR. POST: These provisions in here make it practically impossible to get a veto on the giving away of public utili- ties. I do not think, however, that Mr. Robins’ motion covers the point of the question. I do not think that the main question is the fact that we do not suc- ceed in getting the signatures of people March 1 1165 1907 who cannot write their names. I think the suggestion is such that we cannot prove the signatures of those who sign their names, who do sign their names. For that reason I am opposed to the section as it stands. I also see no rea- son for a change in making this par- ticular amendment. I, therefore, vote THE CHAIRMAN: Upon Mr. Rob- ins’ amendment the ayes are 12 and the noes are 31. The motion is lost. MR. ROSENTHAL: But the words each signer shall add to his signature, which shall be in his own handwrit- ing, his place of residence, giving the street and the number of the house. I want to send to the desk an amendment that will cure the ambiguity. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary read it. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Rosen- thal: “There shall be added to the signa- ture of each signer, which shall be in his own hand, his place of residence, giving the street and the number of the house. 4 ’ MR. ROSENTHAL: It shall be in his own hand, that is. THE CHAIRMAN: Strike out the word “writing.” THE SECRETARY: I haven’t it here; I didn’t read it. MR. FISHER: It does not seem to me that that quite clears it up. I think it would be much better to insert a separate sentence which would say that persons who are qualified to sign a petition, but who are not able to write their names, shall be authorized to make their mark and authorize the signing of their residence, giving the street number and the house. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection to that amendment? MR. HILL: It does seem to me that a man educated enough to vote, should not be put in that position; it seems to me that a matter that is not of suffi- cient public interest for qualified voters to take in hand, should not be con- sidered. I think we have gone far enough in the compromise of this, and I think we should stop right here. MR. CHURCH: Is there a motion pending before the house? If not, I move that we take a recess to 2 o ’clock. MR. COLE: Mr. Chairman, on the amendment of Mr. Fisher, all those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye; all those opposed no. It is carried. MR. B. A. ECKHART: I move you, Mr. Chairman, that we adjourn to 2 o ’clock. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor signify by saying aye; opposed, no. It is carried. And the Convention stood adjourned to meet Friday, March 1, 1907, at 2 o’clock p. m. March 1 1166 1907 AFTERNOON SESSION, 2 O’CLOCK P. M. THE CHAIRMAN: The Convention will he in order pursuant to recess. Present — Foreman, Chairman, and Badenoch, Beilfuss, Bennett, Brosseau, Brown, Burke, Church, Clettenberg,Cole, Dixon, G. W., Dixon, T. J., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Fisher, Gansbergen, Greenacre, Guerin, Harri- son, Hill, Hunter, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, MacMillan, McCor- mick, McGoorty, McKinley, Merriam, Michaelis, O’Donnell, Owens, Pen- darvis, Post, Raymer, Robins, Rosen- thal, Shanahan, Snow, Taylor, Yopicka, Werno, White, Wilkins, Young, Zim- mer — 48. Absent — Baker, Beebe, Carey, Crilly, Dever, Erickson, Graham, Haas, Hoyne, Lundberg, Oehne, Paullin, Powers, Rainey, Revell, Rinaker, Ritter, Seth- ness, Shedd, Shepard, Smulski, Sunny, Swift, Thompson, Walker, Wilson — 26. MR. POST: Mr. Chairman, may I have the ear of the Chair for a min- ute? THE CHAIRMAN: What is it, Mr. Post? MR. POST: I have got so much to answer for in this record, what I did say, and what I didn’t, I have got so much that I have to apologize for, that I don’t want any body’s else speech at- tributed to me. I ask to have the rec- ord corrected on page 1080 in the 7th line by striking out my name there be- fore the speech that follows. I didn’t make the speech, it is contrary to my sentiments. I don’t know who made the speech and I would like to have my name taken out there. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection it is so ordered. I believe Mr. Robins had another amendment to the section under consideration. MR. ROBINS: That was on the subject of the qualified voter. THE CHAIRMAN: If not, those in favor — MR. PENDARYIS: What is the question? THE CHAIRMAN: If not, it will be adopted as amended. •MR. McGOORTY: I wish to offer an amendment to that. THE SECRETARY: My Mr. Mc- Goorty: Amend Section 9, Chapter 2, by striking out after the word: “Voter,” in line 3, page 22, of said section, the words, “and either that he knows the signature to be genuine or that the same was made in his pres- ence.” MR. McGOORTY : Now, Mr. Chair- man, striking out the words after “Voter,” page 22: “and either that he knows the signature to be genuine or that the same was made in his pres- ence,” that would leave the section so that the party circulating the petition, if his verification is to the effect that he believes the signer to be a qualified voter, and that he thoroughly believes his signature to be genuine, that would substantially meet all the require- ments. Now when the law was passed, known as the School Bill, or the Gard- ner law, it was considered as a blow at the independent voters. That law required 2 per cent, of the voters on a petition to nominate by petition. It was considered a joke, and the press of this city commented upon the fact of how impossible it would be in a man for a party to swear that he knows the signature of the party or parties; that they are genuine, or that the same is made in his presence, or verily believes the same to be genuine. Now under the public policy act there is no require- March 1 1167 1907 ment at all as to verification. It seems in fairness that if there is a require- ment that that party circulating it and attending to the petition, swears that he verily believes that this party is a qualified voter, and that signature is the signature of this party, why that meets every substantial requirement in the spirit of the act. But it is quite obvious on careful consideration that this law, section 5, of elections regard- ing nominations was put in for the pur- pose, as it was construed at that time, namely, to attract the independent voters. Now by analogy it certainly can be fairly said that this will attack the people who desire a referendum upon any proper question. Now this conven- tion has gone on record as saying, as a matter of policy, that a franchise shall become a law when passed by the council, unless there is a petition for a referendum vote. And upon the policy of the convention, and perhaps it is a wise one, although I am not entirely in accord with it, but it does seem to be an undue burden to add the restriction attached in this section, that the party must know — must swear that he knows the signature of the voter, and if the voter has not signed in his presence, he goes on record, say- ing under oath that he believes his sig- nature, that it is the signature of the party, that seems to me fair and reason- able. THE CHAIRMAN: We have here the amendment of Mr. McGoorty to strike out the words “that he knows the signature was genuine or that the same was made . in his presence, and that he verily believes the same to be genuine — is that the purport of it, Mr. McGoorty? MR. McGOORTY: Yes. MR. SNOW: What is that that is to be stricken out, Mr. McGoorty? THE CHAIRMAN: On page 22 of the new edition, the words, ‘ 1 that either he knows the signature to be genuine or the same was made in his presence, and he verily believes the same to be genuine. ’ ’ MR. McGOORTY : I want, Mr. Chairman, that section should read, “he verily believes the signature to be gen- uine, ” it only strikes out that part “that he knows it was genuine,” or that it was made in his presence and that he believes it to be. THE CHAIRMAN: Either that he knows the signature to be genuine or that the same was made in his pres- ence? MR. McGOORTY: Yes. MR. SNOW: In other words, Mr. Chairman, the proposition is to strike out what little is left in the way of safe-guarding that petition. Now I would like to ask Mr. McGoorty as a lawyer, how he would ever convict a man of perjury who verily believes something. MR. McGOORTY: That question is directed to me Mr. Chairman. I will state that is the only form of oath that is usual in many of these cases in bills for chancery except in a prayer for in- junction or some other things where a man has to say he knows of his own knowledge, but still this will require that man under oath to say that he verily believes the signatures appearing upon that sheet or petition to be true and genuine signatures. MR. SNOW: That does not answer the question as to how he would ever controvert a man ’s oath that believes something. MR. McGOORTY: Of course — but it is quite different from the present public policy act which has no require- ment at all. MR. SNOW: It is exceedingly dif- ferent and from my stand point it is even more different than the public policy act. If that amendment is March 1 1168 1907 adopted it leaves, the petition without the slightest effort at safe-guarding it or securing an honest petition. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? (Cries of question.) THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor — MR. McGOORTY: I ask for a roll call. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, there is no use of having a roll call, Mr. Mc- Goorty, because there is less than a quorum present, and we will have to hold the meeting then until a quorum arrives; it is a matter, however, that was thoroughly thrashed out at this morning ? s meeting. , MR. McGOORTY: I do not care to hold the meeting, I do not wish to raise the point of a quorum — THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. McGoorty, what is that? MR. McGOORTY : I say, Mr. Chair- man, I do not wish to obstruct the progress of this meeting, and simply suggest that this matter be left in abeyance until we have a quorum, and let the Convention proceed. MR. SNOW : Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. McGoorty if he would be satisfied to simply have a standing vote. MR. McGOORTY: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor of Mr. McGoorty ? s motion, please rise. MR. POST: I would like to be rec- orded for it, Mr. Chairman, for the rea- sons which I have previously given. (All those in favor of the motion rose.) THE CHAIRMAN: All those op- posed to Mr. McGoorty ’s amendment, please rise. (Those opposed to the amendment rose.) THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is lost, proceed to the — MR. POST: Before taking up the next section, Mr. Chairman, there is a resolution that I have left in the hands of the secretary. THE CHAIRMAN : The secretary will read the resolution. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Post: “Resolved, That when this Convention adjourns after action upon the final draft of the charter now under consid- eration, it adjourns subject to the call of the Chair. ” THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would suggest that that resolution might as well lie over, saving rights until we see where we get today. MR. POST: As long as the rights are saved I am satisfied. THE CHAIRMAN: The secretary will proceed with article 16, No. 2. THE SECRETARY: Page 114 of the new draft, No. 2. MR. HUNTER: That was disposed of. THE CHAIRMAN: Number 3. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenthal. MR. ROSENTHAL: Number 3, the words, “No grant made by the city for any public utility shall be leased or as- signed without the consent of the city. ” That does not cover at least implied consent. I ask to have all of the words stricken out after the word, “utility,” and these words substituted in the last line on page 115. THE CHAIRMAN: Please read the amendment. THE SECRETARY: (Reading amendment.) By Mr. Rosenthal, amendment to 16-3: “Shall be leased, assigned or otherwise aliened without the expressed consent of the city, and no dealings with the lessee or assign on the part of the city, or requiring the performance of any act or the payment of any compensation by the lessee or assign shall be presumed to affect such consent. * ’ March 1 1169 1907 THE CHAIRMAN : Any discussion upon this amendment? (Cries of question.) THE CHAIRMAN: If not, all of those in favor signify it by saying aye, those opposed will signify by saying nay — the Chair didn't get that, will the secretary read that again please. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Rosen- thal, page 115 — amendment to 16-3: * 1 shall be leased, assigned or otherwise aliened without the express consent of the city, and no dealings with the lessee or assign on the part of the city, or re- quiring the performance of any act or payment of any compensation by the lessee or assign shall be presumed to affect such consent." (Cries of question.) THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? (Cries of question.) THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor signify by saying aye; contrary no — all those in favor will signify by rising. (The secretary announced 25 as ris- ing-) THE CHAIRMAN: All those op- posed will rise. (The secretary announced one as ris- ing-) THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is carried — the amendment is carried — proceed. MR. LINEHAN: Mr. Chairman, I think we should be provided with a Webster Dictionary if we are to have scuh propositions thrown in here; I say that half the men here don't know what the language means. There is a section in there that can be so read, easily, and somebody comes along with a jungle of adjectives and adverbs and we don 't know what it means. We don’t know what is in it. It ought to go in writing, we should have some- thing in writing, so that we could un- derstand it. I don't take any lawyer's word for anything. MR. RAYMER: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, so that there is no feel- ing over the matter, that Mr. Rosenthal explain the sense of his amendment. THE CHIARMAN: The Chairman would be very glad also to have him do that. MR. ROSENTHAL: The last line here provides that no grant made by the city or any public utility shall be had without the consent of the city. I will say for Mr. Linelian's benefit, that up to that point I haven't had anything to do with this particular section. All that nefarious work that he accuses me of being guilty of in the section, is sub- sequent; the word lease might not be sufficient. Alienation might not include lease, and the company might resort to a subterfuge, that if we simply used the word lease the company might escape under the other heading. In re- gard to the consent of the city, that might mean expressed consent or it might mean implied consent. What I wanted to express was both expressed and implied consent. So if the city should deal with a lessor or an assignee or an alienee, it would not be held to be consent, but when we came to a law suit, the grant might be urged by the attorney to be forfeit; it would not be set up on the part of the lessee; you have dealt with me in regard to the matter, and you are estopped or pre- vented; I don't want to use legal lan- guage; you are prevented in that way from setting up a claim that the title is invalid, because you have dealt with me. I composed this language for Mr. Linehan 's benefit and in accordance with his view, and I hoped he would express his approval. MR. LINEHAN: The explanation is entirely satisfactory, but I think all such amendments in future should have a translation sent with them. March 1 1170 1907 THE CHAIRMAN: The secretary will proceed. THE SECRETARY: 3, 4, 5, 6; page 116-7. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, sec- tion 7, beginning with the third line, “nor shall the city itself lay,” this section reads (section read). Now, this language inserted here, “nor shall the city itself lay,” would require the city to get the consent for the laying of a water pipe or erecting a telephone pole, or laying a telephone conduit, and the charter would limit the right of the city to carry on its operations and con- trol the streets. I do not think the city should be limited on any of those mat- ters. I therefore move to strike out, “nor shall the city itself lay.” MR, FISHER : I second it. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion be- fore the house is to strike out the words: “Nor shall the city itself lay.” The motion is to strike that out. MR. B. A. ECKHART: I call your attention to section 16-15,- there is noth- ing in this that applies to water works in the City of Chicago. MR. BENNETT: My attention has been called to the language, but I do not think that any of us can foresee at this time just what the city will want to do with the streets in the way of public utilities, and it is not for me to limit the city; we are apt to leave out some matter, and then our hands would be tied. I think the better way to reach it would be in the manner which I have directed in my motion. MR. HUNTER: I second it. MR. GREENACRE: I want to sec- ond one thing that Mr. Bennett has said: As to the cost of lighting; if we ever have gas lighting municipally, we will have it tied up and won’t be able to get frontage for the city to extend its lighting plant. I know of no better plan for a private monopoly to hold up a city, and I second Mr. Bennett’s motion. MR. ROSENTHAL: It seems to me this whole section ought to be more carefully redrafted than we can redraft it here on the floor of this convention. As a matter of fact, it ought to be drafted in such a way — THE CHAIRMAN: The question is upon Mr. Bennett’s amendment. MR. ROSENTHAL: I know, Mr. Chairman, and that is why I am op- posing that amendment in that form,, and speaking to it. That is why I do- not believe we ought to adopt Mr. Ben- nett’s amendment in the form in which it was made by him, because it may be desired at some future time, either on the part of some company with or without the city’s consent, to lay sewer pipes under the street or to ex- tend conduits under the street, or to ex- tend cables under the street, which would in no way interfere with any property owners. I therefore, move, as a substitute, that this section be re- referred to the drafting committee to- redraft it. THE CHAIRMAN: You have heard the substitute of Mr. Rosenthal. As many as are in favor of that will sig- nify by saying aye; opposed, no. The motion is lost. The question now reverts to Aider- man Bennett’s amendment. As many as favor that will signify by saying aye; opposed, no. Carried. Proceed. THE SECRETARY: 7, 8, 9,— MR. POST: Mr. Chairman, I now move to strike out, beginning with the second line on page 117, — THE CHAIRMAN: The second line on page 117 of the new draft. MR. POST: I move to strike out the words, unless the proposition to operate, — and down to and including the words in the fourth line, “Those voting thereon”; and to substitute in place of those words, March 1 1171 1907 Until 60 days after the passage of the ordinance therefore by the city council; and, if within such 60 days there shall be filed with the city clerk of the said city a petition signed by 10 per cent, of the registered voters of the city, as shown by the last preceding election for mayor, requesting that such proposition be submitted to popular vote ’ ’ — Such proposition shall not be effec- tive until the question of granting such proposition shall be effective. I will explain, and if the verbiage is not sufficient in this case, in case it is adopted, that can be made so. There are two points involved: In the first place, to make the popular vote a majority instead of three- fifths; and, In the second place, to place the question of allowing the city to operate on precisely the same basis that you have already placed the question of the granting away of the franchise. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the amendment. MR. POST: I wish a roll call on that, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly. MR. FISHER: I call for a division of the question. MR. POST: I will second that mo- tion. MR. FISHER: Mr. Post, I think we should insist on two questions; that is, whether there is to be an affirmative proposition; and, second, as to the ma- jority. Now, addressing myself to the first proposition: I think there is a funda- mental difference between the require- ments of the vote in this case, and the requirement as to the case of a peti- tion or referendum, in the case of a grant of an ordinary franchise. The provision with regard to fran- chise, and the petition for a referendum is- intended to reach a great variety of cases, and for franchises which might sometimes be for a block in extent, or less than a block, and may extend from that up to an entire system. In each case the referendum vote is required. Now, in this particular case a single vote settles all details to the City of Chicago, and submits that bare question to the vote of the people; and, on a deci- sion in the affirmative, no further ref- erendum votes are required to operate that, or any extensions or additions to it. The general question as to whether or not the city shall proceed to operate street railways having been decided, it is decided every time, so far as the re- quirements of the law are concerned; it seems to me under those circum- stances that the city council should have the power to submit that proposi- tion to a referendum vote without the necessity of a petition. There is a radical difference as I see it, and, on the other question, when you come to that, I am of the opinion that we should change the three-fifths to a majority vote. It seems to me there iSja fundamental difference. I can conceive of no more ingenious device to beat the public out of municipal ownership or municipal operation. I understand there are some gentlemen who think municipal owner- ship without operation is a desirable thing, and say they are in favor of ownership but not in favor of opera- tion; their theory being that they could get along with the operation of a lessee company in some better manner than in the operation by the town itself. I do not think there is anything whatever in that. The form of public utility ordinances, will accomplish everything that is intended to be accomplished, without involving the municipality in the use of its credit for the financing of the scheme. No better example can bo had March 1 1172 / 1907 than that of the New York subway, which has been built on the credit of the town, and has been used as one of the most profitable watered-stock enter- prises that has been seen in that city for years. There is no conceivable argument in favor of it on principle, except a bare possibility that is advocated by some people, on the theory that it could be more easily handled. At one time I, myself, thought there were some ad- vantages in that direction, but as I have analyzed it, and as you see, and have studied the history of utilities here and elsewhere, I have come to the conclusion that there is absolutely nothing whatever in that proposition. There is no reason why the credit of the City of Chicago should be used to build an enterprise which you are going to turn over to another corporation, a private corporation, to run as lessee. All the difficulties that arise with ref- erence to equipment, repairs, the ad- vancing of money, all those questions, — you are going to handle all the situa- tions of administration, and they are increased, and some of them in very serious ways, by the policy. Now, it seems to me, that being so, that a municipality ought not be put in a posi- tion such as this city is now placed in, where a majority of voters are in favor of municipal operation, and where 10,000 votes more for municipal opera- tion were voted than were voted for municipal ownership alone. And, yet we are unable to accomplish municipal ownership, because of that limitation in the law. Now, I want to call your attention to the deadlock which may easily arise under those circumstances. Let us sup- pose that at the succeeding election, or at any succeeding election of the City of Chicago, the people by a majority vote, should be in favor of municipal ownership, but it would be impossible to secure the 60 per cent. vote. Th© majority that would be in favor of municipal ownership would successfully block on that referendum any attempt to carry out that policy, and yet, being unable to secure the operation, will not do anything. That situation might be extremely serious, and my own opinion is that the majority vote should control in both cases. MR. ROBINS: May I ask what is the question before the house at this time — before the Convention? THE CHAIRMAN: The question is Mr. Post’s motion to strike out in the revised copy of the Charter on page 117, the words: “Unless the proposi- tion to operate shall first have been submitted to the electors of the city as a separate proposition, and approved by three-fifths of those voting thereon.” And insert in lieu therof: “Until sixty days, etc.,” the same as in Section 2. MR. ROBINS: Mr. Chairman, was that motion divided so that we have the opportunity of voting on changing the words in the section from three- fifths to a majority? MR. FISHER: It was divided. THE CHAIRMAN: The question can be divided. MR. POST : I understand it was, Mr. Chairman. I think it was. MR. ROBINS: Then, is that the motion now before us, to change the words from three-fifths to a majority? THE CHAIRMAN: To a majority. MR. ROBINS: On that motion I would like to say a few words : It seems to me that we are facing here a question that we have considered once before in this Convention — the advisa- bility of giving the control of the city, of the policy of the city in its most important aspect possible, and one which is of growing importance from year to year, into the hands of a mi- nority. March 1 1173 1907 . Anything less than a majority always means minority control. Now, it seems to me it is unnecessary to state that truism in this Convention, and yet certain gentlemen have pro- ceeded upon it in preparing the educa- tional scheme, and it is not being pro- ceeded upon in this draft. As I understand the excuse for the three-fifths vote in the Mueller law, the provision requiring the three-fifths vote for municipal operation : that was conceived as a political necessity at that time, some years back, to get the act through at all. All of us familiar with the facts in regard to the passage of the Mueller law are inclined to believe that is a sound statement, inasmuch as it took a riot to pass the Mueller law at all. Personally, I believe that the action of the Charter Convention, by this pro- vision, will have more to do with the vote of the franchise ordinance now before the people for votes than any other provision in this charter, and than any other one fact in relation to the whole matter. Those franchise ordinances provide for municipal purchase, as the language on the petitions suggest. I believe that they were prepared in good faith, and that the wording is a good faith word- ing; that those ordinances are offered by the people who do offer them, as ordinances providing for municipal pur- chase, because the city has already voted for municipal purchase, and have taken the only steps open to the city to take legally, to provide the means for that purchase. One of the reasons why I personally should oppose those ordinances, would be the reason that it takes three-fifths vote before the people of the City of Chicago can take another step in the declaring of a public policy upon which it has been launched by the official vote of the people of the City of Chicago, and by the official action of the City Council of Chicago. I believe that it does not lie in the power of any group in the city, less than the whole people, who have de- termined that policy, and have declared by a vote to establish that policy, to turn back upon that policy, or to put any bar in the way of either realizing, by such steps are necessary, the poli- cy they have determined to be the policy which they do want. Now, in this three-fifths bar to mu- nicipal operation, you put your finger upon the shrewdest scheme that can be invented to bring municipalities under the pending traction ordinances. I take it by the vote here in this Char- ter Convention this afternoon we will know as far as the members voting thereon are concerned whether they re- gard this ordinance and wish to make these ordinances municipal ownership ordinances, or whether they regard them as private franchise grants for a long period and so desire that they should be. I speak not only for myself, but I speak also the language of a number of persons with whom I have conversed on this question of the ordinances, and the point at which they question is : Whether or not municipalization would ever be possible under the ordinance as this two-thirds vote requires, to really get municipalization under this ordi- nance, because the ordinance incorpor- ates the provisions of the Mueller law and that provision becomes in turn an ordinance. Now, Mr. Chairman, there is only one answer to be made to people that raise that objection, and that is that the legislature is willing to allow the people of Chicago to carry out the poli- cy that the people of Chicago have voted for and have passed an ordinance upon, and are now attempting in the March 1 1174 1907 Supreme Court of the State to secure the necessary money required to adopt that policy. With the three-fifths pro- vision retained by this Convention and retained by the legislature. And the vote in this Convention will be a fair indication of what the legislature will do in the opinion of some of us. We will have clearly before us the attitude of people favoring municipal ownership upon these ordinances at the spring elec- tion. Therefore, I simply suggest, first, that the policy of good government every- where, good administration everywhere, whether it be in business groups, in educational groups, or in political groups, is to provide that a majority shall control; that the policy that puts control in the minorities everywhere is being discredited in practice as it is un- tenable in theory; that to the general abstract qualities of the discussion is added an inimical practical quality of the situation before the voters of this city. And in considering and voting upon it, I suggest the consideration that the issue of that one clause in the or- dinances for municipal operation only when that one clause is backed by three-fifths requirement before you can municipally operate — if that policy is maintained by this Convention it will have more to do with the defeat follow- ing upon this vote than anything else in my judgment affecting the ordinances; or anything that can happen within now and the next thirty days. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question. MR. BADENOCH: Mr. Chairman, the question of municipal operation is a very radical question. It proposes a radical change from the present condi- tion. It seems to me that one moment’s reflection would show you that there is a large percentage of the unthinking part of the population that would al- ways be ready to vote on anything that would change the existing conditions. Taking that into proper consideration it seems but a fair requirement that something more than a mere majority should be required to effect so impor- tant a change as municipal operation. Those who are present would, in my humble judgment, and I think the great majority of the representatives of the city today would agree that everything that was operated by the city costs more and is much more inefficiently operated than those same things that are opera- ted by private ownership. Now, an ex- ample could be had in this council room, look at these lights today; there is no excuse for the lights not being burning except that they are municipally operated lights, the rest of the lights in the city are burning MR. LINEHAN : They are Edison lights. THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Badenoch has the floor. MR. BADENOCH: The other day nobody could sit in here without their overcoats because there was no heat, there is an abundant supply of coal in the basement but the city employes did not fire up the furnaces sufficiently to keep us warm. Now, it seems to me that when the government shall have advanced to that point of efficiency that will recommend it in the operation of things like this, the things which it already has to oper- ate, and it shall be found to be desira- ble to have it operate the further things, it will not be very difficult to secure sixty per cent of the voters to vote for it. I think it would be a serious mistake from this point of view. But, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the Con- vention, there is another serious con- sideration. We know that the senti- ment of the people of the state is pretty solidly fixed on this point, and that the representatives of the people in this March 1 1175 1907 state, to whom we have to look for the adoption of this charter are pretty solidly standing on the proposition that for municipal operation sixty per cent of the vote will have to be required, and it seems to me that we should not put in anything at this time that is almost sure to be defeated. For the reasons I have stated briefly, and for this reason, I think it would be a serious mistake at this time to change it to be less than a three-fifths vote. MR. WERNO: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Werno. MR. WERNO : Mr. Chairman, I be- lieve in the majority rule, and there- fore I hope that this amendment will prevail. I desire to say on that, that some two years ago, when a committee on state legislation in the city council was working on a draft of the Mueller bill, so-called, some of us on that com- mittee favored a majority instead of three-fifths, but when it passed through the legislature, it passed with this three- fifths requirement, and personally, it seems to me that it ought to take a ma- jority, especially if we are in favor of the ordinances that are now pending in the city. MR. LINEHAN: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Linehan. MR. LINEHAN: I would like to state that when the foundations were pulled out of the building here the dyna- mos were removed from this building. Since that time the Edison company have been supplying the electric lights on the south end of the building, and the lights are not connected with mu- nicipal ownership at all. I would also like to state this, that it was negli- gence on the part of the Convention not notifying the janitor of the build- ing to have heat here on Washington’s birthday, and not freezing out, and that -s no reason for favoring private ownership MR. GREENACRE: Mr. Chair- man. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Green- acre. MR. GREENACRE: It seems to me that a vote on this question is prac- tically a vote that will show whether the persons in favor of the traction ordinances are in good faith or in bad faith, as to the whole of the ordinances. I take it that they were in good faith and meant to grant a franchise to the street car companies temporarily until t the street car properties could be bought, and to provide by the ordi- nances a means for purchasing, and the ordinances are, as they pretend to be, the Only practicable method of acquiring the street car properties un- der the existing conditions. And, as I understand it, that is the claim of those in favor of the ordi- nances. This is the test of their good faith in that claim. A few moments ago, in considering the last paragraph, where the section as drawn made it equally hard for the city as for the pri- vate owner or company to obtain an ordinary utility grant, on the motion of Alderman Bennett, very properly made, the city was preferred, and it was made easier for the city to install a utility than for a private company. The question is in almost the same breath, within the same ten minutes by the clock, and shall we reverse the principle involved in that vote, and now turn and make it harder for the city than for the private company? Ten minutes ago we said that instead of be- ing equal the city should have a prefer- ence. Now then, Mr. Post’s motion is not that in this case the city should have a preference, but taking the very words of the act iu regard to the refer- endum, passed at the session this morn- ing and adopted, about the require- ments and burdens imposed on a pri- March 1 1176 1907 vate company on a referendum on its franchise — taking those very words here and substituting them for this section. The question is, have you gone so far within ten minutes when you were in favor of favoring the city, that now you are not willing to give the city even a fair shake, a square shake, but want to impose upon it more conditions ? Let me put it to you plainly: When a private franchise is to be granted, say you this morning, then there shall not be a compulsory referendum, but only an optional referendum on a referen- dum vote. When there is to be a public operation by a municipality this after- noon, does the alderman who last spoke -contend that then the difference is that there must be a compulsory referendum and that there must be a three-fifths vote? In other words, is it a fact that this morning we were in favor of the — of a square balance, whether it was a public or private grant? This afternoon, ten minutes ago, we were in favor of giving the city a preference and making it less burdensome, to the city, and now, be- cause there is a street franchise opera- tion question before us, we are in fa- vor of the private company and of bur- dening the city and the people with greater burdens than a private com- pany would have on a similar fran- chise. If you should vote down this resolu- tion and vote aye for this amendment of Mr. Post’s, that means then you stand where you stood ten minute ago ; it means that you have faith or intend to have faith at least in your own be- lief that the ordinances which you pre- tend to say are the only municipal or- dinances under the conditions now. Now, then, what -are you going to do? To vote no on this proposition is to say two things plainly; it is to say: I am not in favor of municipal owner- ship, under any circumstances, and the ordinances pending before the people are simply a confidence game, pretend- ing to be municipal ordinances, and sim- ply a confidence game, that they are, in fact, private franchises for 20 years and they are nothing else THE CHAIRMAN: The gentle- man’s time has expired. MR. GREENACRE: I want one more minute, if you please. (Cries of proceed.) MR. GREENACRE: If that is so, it is simply a confidence game, intend- ing to befog the people, and not what they should be. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bennett. MR. BENNETT: When I came to this Convention this afternoon, I un- derstood I was coming to consider a charter for the City of Chicago which should apply to the general subject mat- ter, and I did not understand that I was coming here to discuss the traction question. Now, the attempt to modify this pro- vision by the inuendo that we place ourselves upon record, if we pass this motion, I say is too narrow for con- sideration. The fact of the city acquir- ing the ownership of public utilities is a far larger question than the traction question ; it is a far larger question if the traction question at this election should fail, than that the city should go blindly into this new venture with- out mature reflection or mature consid- eration. I say to you gentlemen, that it is inherently fitting that safeguards should be thrown around this question and to say that more than a majority of the voters should be required upon this question so as to require an agitation sufliciently to educate the people as to what they are entering upon. Now I wish to say that the question whether the majority are required to March 1 1177 1907 pass these ordinances, does not change the language of those ordinances, and they can stand for a majority vote or a three-fifths vote and have municipal ownership. We have heard what occurred before this council, the chairman of the com- mittee and Mr. Fisher agreeing on the majority. Now, I have never been one of those who believed in the city entering upon municipal ownership until such a time as it was reasonable to do so. From my experience in the city work I am convinced that no greater trouble could come upon us than to place these things immediately into operation under our present methods of running city affairs. However, in the consideration of these ordinances, I have in good faith at- tempted to assist in placing in them the right to take over upon the terms of the ordinances, which are perfectly clear and which no fair-minded man will controvert, and in order to bring this matter squarely before the house I move that the section stand as pro- posed. MR. POST : A point of order, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: I think there will be no objection to putting Mr. Post’s motion as he put it. MR. POST: I should like a word or two to close the discussion, if there is nothing more said on the other side. THE CHAIRMAN : The Chair will be very happy to hear from some- body — MR. ROSENTHAL: I do not know, Mr. Chairman, I do not think it was intended that I should not say anything, but it seems to me that we have come to a very vital section in our whole charter, and a point upon which many of us disagree. I think it involves in a large measure a question as large as any other section in this utility act. I, myself, am not one of those who believe that the people themselves need no restraint. I believe there is on the other side of tljis question many who think that any- thing that comes from the people, or is done by a majority of the people, is necessarily good. It seems to me there is some real foundation to draw a distinction here, where we are going out to do some- thing the city has not done before. In other words, where we are entering upon a radical departure in our govern- ment of the city, in our municipal gov- ernment of the city, why we should not require a larger vote than is re- quired in other cases. In the history of this country there has been comparatively little harm done by the minority, but there has, in times past, and history is full of it, there has been great harm frequently done by the majority, and the major- ities are unthinking at times, they are unwise, they are hasty, they rush into things, and before the city starts out with a certain venture which is a business venture, they should wait until the people say we want to undertake this particular thing. That is not giving the minority of the people any power, but that is mak- ing the whole people calmer and more deliberate, and requiring a more sen- sible judgment and a larger number of people. Now I do not see anything wrong to that ; it is not defeating the majority. In ordinary matters they can do as they please, they can elect their own officers, and all that, but if it is a difference of one vote, or a difference of two votes, and two more should be in favor of municipal operation than against it, it seems to me it would be rather wrong for the city itself to take what might be called a business venture, and that is why I am opposed to this particular amendment. March 1 1178 1907 I might say, when it comes to such questions as the operation of gas works or the operation of electric light plants, I think I would be in favor of allowing the city to take that over without re- quiring a majority vote. But when it comes to dealing with huge traction system, or doing something of that character, I think it would be rather rash to allow the city by a mere ma- jority vote to take over a venture of that sort and enter upon the experi- mental field. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Post will close the debate. MR. POST : And I will close it very briefly, Mr. President, which I have no doubt will be to the gratification of the Chair. Pardon one word in reply to Mr. Rosenthal. If you will look over your history again it will throw some ad- ditional light upon it for you. The minority in France for centuries did more harm than was done by the ex- cesses of the majority when they got a chance, and that is typical of all his- tory. MR. ROSENTHAL: I said Amer- ican history. MR. POST : It is typical of all his- tory, whether American or any other. Now, we heard from Alderman Ben- nett that the attempt or possibility of creating municipal operation should be safeguarded. Safeguarded from whom? From the city council? That’s all. Under this provision, as amended, if my amendment should pass, nothing could be done unless the city council passed the ordinances. And if the city agreed to that, then everything was safeguard- ed; in fact, the only way to safeguard the public interests is to have the repre- sentatives of the city council safe- guarded. Now, my repjly to Alderman Bennett, Mr. Chairman, is, that if the city coun- cil cannot be trusted to safeguard the rights of the people against Wall street manipulators, it can be trusted to safe- guard the rights of the people against themselves. That is the position I have tried to make understood here. So far as the first part of the motion is con- cerned, I fail to see the distinction made by Mr. Fisher, that he draws. He says that the proposal for municipal opera- tion is a general proposition. I reply that the proposition for granting a franchise is a general proposition, and that the same conditions ought to pre- vail with reference to both. I voted this morning to have a clause in regard to making a franchise resting upon the same conditions you are now trying to make this clause rest upon, as to the question of three-fifths. Gentlemen have . spoken about com- promise. I am willing to compromise with you, gentlemen. But the com- promisers have put us on the inside of the compromise, and you take a line on the outside. I am willing to compromise now. You have insisted we should be put in this position, tied, sewed up. If great franchise interests come here to corrupt the city council, you compel us to go out and get 40,000 signatures to defeat that action. But if we want municipal operation, then yon don’t want thst requirement. Now. I will compromise with you, by making the requirement in both cases. I say it, gentlemen, and I say it most solemnly, that if you draw this dis- tinction that will be drawn if you co not adopt this amendment, it will be an indication both as to the three- fifths, and as to the question of the petition, that you mean to make sub- stantial distinctions between the rights of the people of the City of Chicago, on the one hand, and the privileges of the vested interests that organize in New York and Chicago, on the other. I don’t make that as a threat. I make it as a simple statement of what March 1 1179 1907 seems to me will apical to the peop^ of the City of Chicago as an obvious fact that has characterized the purpose of this Convention. MR. JONES : Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak just a minute. I understand this section 8 relates only to the question of operation. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. MR. JONES : Of public utilities. I understand that section 1 of the pro- posed article gives the power to the city to own, maintain and operate. But there is no specific provision in the charter that requires anything more than a majority to acquire municipal ownership. My understanding of the charter is that if the city wishes to own any public utility, it will require o?:ly a majority vote, provided the matter is put before the people for a vote. But in the case of the operation of a public utility, under this provision, as now drawn, it would require a three- fifths vote. That is the charter and the laws of the state will supplement the charter and draw a distinction be- tween municipal ownership and mu- nicipal operation. I believe in the minds of the public generally there are two schools : one school which is willing to go to the extent of municipal ownership, but is unwilling to go to the extent of mu- nicipal operation, because the latter brings in the human intellect ; the em- ployes that would be subject to politi- cal manipulation. Now, I personally believe that it would be proper to permit the city to take over certain public utilities for ownership by a majority vote, but I am one who believes that it would be very unwise for this city at this time to trust that — to do that, for some years in the future, to undertake and operate the street car lines. So that I would be opposed to permitting the city to acquire these lines for operation as easily as they might acquire them for ownership. I believe, therefore, that this provision, as drafted, should re- main. I believe it should be made more difficult — very much more difficult — for the city to operate public utilities of this kind, than should be required if the city should merely acquire the title to the property and then lease it, or make it a matter of contract provision, if you wish. MR. POST : Will you permit a question ? ’ AIR. JONES : Certainly. AIR. POST : Do you think it would also be more difficult for the city in their own operation than for the city to give away on any basis that a major- ity of the council choose, operating privileges to private corporations? MR. JONES : That has nothing to do with the question. THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Jones may answer that, if he wishes to, but the Chair thinks that has nothing to do with it. MR. JONES: I am not talking about franchises or private rights. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll on Mr. Post’s amend- ment, to a majority for three-fifths in line 4, page 117. Yeas — Beilfuss, Brosseau, Burke, Cole, Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Fisher, Greenacre, Guerin, Harrison, Linehan, MacMillan, McGoorty, AIc- Kinley, Merriam, Michaelis, Owens, Post, Robins, Taylor, Vopicka, Werno, White, Wilkins, Zimmer. — 25. Nays — Badenoch, Bennett, Brown, Church, Dixon, G. W., Eidmann, Gans- bergen, Hunter, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, McGoorty, Pendarvis, Raymer, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Snow, Young. — 18. (During roll call.) MR. LATHROP: Mr. Chairman, I am in a situation in which a vote of March 1 1180 1907 350.000, or a vote for operation of 176.000, a vote against of 174,000, would, with a bare majority of control, put the power in 2,000 people of Chi- cago, over 350,000. Outside the ques- tion that it would bankrupt this city. I therefore vote no. MR. MERRIAM: Mr. Chairman, I can see the situation arising in this city in which a majority of 70,000 might favor operation, and might be opposed to ownership, and yet be absolutely tied hand and foot. They might be unwilling to grant any franchise. I therefore vote aye. THE CHAIRMAN: On that ques- tion, the yeas are 25, and the nays 18, and the motion is carried. MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Chairman, unless Mr. Post has another motion THE CHAIRMAN : Just a minute. There is another part of Mr. Post’s mo- tion. MR. McCORMICK: I will delay my motion. MR. POST : Let me explain. You will have to take the entire language, a part of the section, in order that the language of the section would be ex- plicit, you would have to stop off at the middle to make it complete. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is, as the Chair understands it, to in- sert practically the same words in the other section. MR. POST : With such adjustment as is necessary. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor signify the same by saying aye; opposed, no. The Secretary will call the roll. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, may we have the question read? MR. G. W. DIXON: I would like to have the question stated. THE CHAIRMAN : The Chair will try to state the amendment. Mr. Post moves to strike out as follows : (Reads amendment.) You have changed the three-fifths to a majority, and he moves to insert in lieu therefor : “Until 60 days after the passage of the ordinance therefor” MR. POST : If the Chair will allow me the privilege of interruption, as he allowed Mr. Rosenthal, I will say that the whole purport of this is to make the same requirements exactly with reference to the question of municipal operation, as we have already made with reference to the question of grant- ing private franchises. That is the whole thing. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? As many as favor — MR. POST: Roll call, Mr. Chair- man. THE CHAIRMAN: Call the roll. Yeas — Beilfuss, Brosseau, Burke, Greenacre, Guerin, Harrison, Linehan, MacMillan, McGoorty, Owens, Post, Taylor, Vopicka, White, Wilkins, Zim- mer. — 16. Nays — Badenoch, Bennett, Brown, Church, Cole, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, B. A., Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Fisher, Gansbergen, Hill, Hunter, Jones, Kit- tleman, Lathrop, McCormick, McKin- ley, Merriam, Michaelis, Pendarvis, Raymer, Robins, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Snow, Werno, Young. — 28. (During roll call.) MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I desire to change my vote from aye to no. THE CHAIRMAN: M,r. Bennett desires to change his .vote from aye to no. MR. G. W. DIXON: I desire to change my vote from aye to no. MR. HILL: I would like to be re- corded as voting no. MR. BROWN : I vote no. THE CHAIRMAN: Upon the mo- tion to adopt, the yeas are 16 and the nays 28. and the motion is lost. MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Chairman, section 16, paragraph 7 : I move to March 1 1181 1907 amend by inserting after the word “city” on the last line, “or the sanitary district of Chicago.” THE CHAIRMAN: We have gone through that section once. MR. McCORMICK: We have, Mr. Chairman, but I want to go back to it. I will explain it in a few words, and it will be passed unanimously, I believe. Page 116, last line from the bottom: “The city shall not itself proceed to operate any such public utility.” I think I can explain it to your satisfac- tion. MR. POST : Is that in the new one or the old one? MR. McCORMICK: In the new. I think I can explain it to everybody’s satisfaction. This ordinance provides that — this paragraph provides — that no ordinance be passed giving to any pri- vate corporation the right or privilege to lay upon or under the surface of any street, alley or public place, etc. The last sentence of this paragraph provides that this section shall not apply to poles, cables and wires needed for the opera- tion of any electric lighting plant owned by the city and established for its own use. I desire to allow the sanitary dis- trict to lay electric light wires without requiring frontage consents. It was attempted at one time to have such contract for the water power plant MR. ROSENTHAL: Does the san- itary district need the consent of the city to lay its wires? MR. McCORMICK: There is a dif- ference of opinion upon that question, between the sanitary district and the city, and I think it would be well to have it cleaned up in the charter. There was an attempt, Mr. Chair- man, at one time, to have the city de- velop this electric light power, and if the city had been able to do so, it would have saved many complications and a great deal of trouble for me. The court held it was beyond the power i of the city, and thereupon the act of 1903 was passed, authorizing the san- itary district of Chicago to develop electric power, which will be ready in the near future. This power will be sold, as much as can be sold, to the city for lighting, and to the parks, and the operation of the municipality. There is a balance which, for several years, will not be required for municipal pur- poses, and if the taxpayers are to de- rive their revenue from the taxes paid, there must be facilities for the selling of this power. There are four million dollars of money invested, and I am sure the trustees of the sanitary district would not be able themselves to do this to any advantage if they were required to get frontage consents to lay them. The sanitary district of Chicago is as much a municipal corporation as the City of Chicago. It is elected by the people, and kept up by taxes paid by the people. It therefore should have every privilege within the scope of its authority, and I ask, therefore, for the amendment. MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman, I think the principle of the general prop- osition Mr. McCormick advocates is unobjectionable, but I think it should be expressly provided that you should have to have the consent of the city. The very point is raised that there is a dif- ference between the city and the san- itary district, and as a substitute for the motion, I ask that we have a sen- tence whereby the sanitary district should obtain the consent of the city. MR. McCORMICK: I don’t see the meaning of that amendment. MR. FISHER: The meaning of the amendment is that it would apply that the poles, cables and wires needed for the operation of the electric light plant owned by the sanitary district, should be laid only with the consent of i the city council. March 1 1182 1907 MR. McCORMICK: There is no question but what the sanitary district has been constructing its lines in ac- cordance with the provisions laid down by the city; but it was unfortunate for the sale and disposal of this power, that it should be governed by two separate bodies. It would double the difficulties. Municipal operation is objected to by many people as being too complicated for public bodies to attack. I don’t know at this time that it was discussed on that question, but I say it is suf- ficiently complicated and sufficiently dif- ficult to go into the commercial busi- ness of selling electric power, and that this work should not have any impedi- ment put in the way, but we should have every assistance. I think the provisions of the present law should not be made more arduous, but, if anything, less so; therefore, my amendment. MR. FISHER: It seems to me it would be a much more unfortunate situation for the City of Chicago if con- trol of the streets was divided between the city council and the sanitary dis- trict. The question of the location of these poles and wires, and the placing them on the public streets, should cer- tainly be under the control of the mu- nicipal authorities : so far as their con- sent is concerned. And inasmuch as the whole matter comes out of the city, and is not provided by the sanitary district, it makes the case stronger. There should be no difficulty in get- ting the consent of the city council on the main proposition, but they should be compelled to get the consent of the city council as to the location and the manner of the poles and wires, which may take dangerous courses. It should not be left entirely to the con- trol of the sanitary district. There should be no division of authority over the control of the streets, and that is of more importance than the other. MR. McCORMICK: What is the nature of your amendment? MR. FISHER: That it should be with the consent of the city. The section will therefore read so that it should include the words “with the consent of the city.” MR. McCORMICK: As to the lo- cation of it? MR. FISHER: The location of it. MR. BENNETT: I offer a further amendment to that section: I would also ask to have this para- graph stricken out, for the reason that you will see by reading it, by leaving this section in, this paragraph here, it limits the city to the particular items named in the paragraph. If it is the desire, the point made by Mr. McCor- mick, and this, might be referred to the drafting committee to re-draft this provision, so that the city will not have to obtain frontage consents, and that it would simply require the sanitary district to get the consent of the city council. I think it is important that the city should retain its control over the streets. The disposition, of course, is to afford every facility to deliver this electricity. At the same time, it is not wise to turn over the streets to the sanitary district in toto. I therefore move a substitute that the drafting committee redraft the sec- tion, with that view in mind. MR. FJSHER: I withdraw my amendment in favor of that. I think the point is well taken. THE CHAIRMAN : The matter be- fore the house is Alderman Bennett’s motion. MR. McCORMICK: I withdraw my amendment in favor of Alderman Ben- nett’s motion. MR. ROSENTHAL: Before this is sent to the drafting committee, I have an amendment which I have submitted to Mr. Fisher and also Mr. Bennett, March 1 1183 1907 covering one point not covered by this section. THE CHAIRMAN : Let Mr. Rosen- thal’s amendment be read. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Rosen- thal : Before the city shall itself lay or place any track, rail or structure over and upon (but not below the surface of) any street, alley or public place for purposes of transportation or the operation of any tramway, carline or railroad, it shall itself be required to secure the consent of owners as in this section required, subject to all the conditions and provision of this sec- tion ; but in no other case shall the city itself be required to secure such consent for its purposes. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chair- man, I think that covers the point raised by Mr. Bennett, and it eliminates this particular thing which ought to be eliminated, and at the same time it is a safeguard to have the city itself — if the city itself operates any car lines or railroad on any street on which there is no track, that the city itself can secure that consent. That is, it does not apply as is specifically stated in the amendment, to any track under the street, or under the surface of the street. MR. ZIMMER: I would like to have that stated specifically in the amend- ment, that it doesn’t apply to streets where tracks are not laid. MR. ROSENTHAL: It is in the section already. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question on Mr. Rosenthal’s amendment? All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye; opposed, no. Carried. Proceed, Mr. Secretary. THE SECRETARY: 8, 9, 10, 11. MR. McGOORTY : Referring to sec- tion 8 — the section which we have been discussing, the last clause in that sen- tence, commencing on line 4 thereon, reads as follows : “But this provision shall not prevent the city,” etc. I have two objections to offer to this section; first: Section 1, of this article, gives the City of Chicago the right to acquire, maintain and operate all public utilities, including those specifically mentioned. Now, it seems to me, from the speeches of some members of this Convention, that while there were some objections on the street car proposition, that those objections did not apply to the proposition of lighting, and when the present enabling act passed the legis- lature, it was a compromised measure, as far as municipal operation of the electric light plant is concerned. And therefore the word “surplus” was in- serted, and the words, “not needed for municipal purposes.” And it was fre- quently predicted at that time that the City of Chicago would suffer, as far as the using of lights for private pur- poses were concerned, and that it is ambiguous, and that it could also al- ways be contended that the city never would have any surplus electric light, or the clause, “not needed for munici- pal purposes,” should be stretched to such an extent as to mean “not needed for private purposes.” I think the city should be given a free hand. We are passing a matter which de- clares the city council should be the governing body on many matters that are now controlled by the legislature, and if the city council says in its judgment, that the electric lighting plant of this city has reached such a con- dition that it can furnish light for pri- vate use, either for lighting, heat or power, it ought to have that right with- out having these limitations that are now in there. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the motion? MR. McGOORTY : The motion is that the words “surplus,” “not needed for municipal purposes,” be stricken out. March 1 1184 1907 THE CHAIRMAN : You have heard the motion, gentlemen. As many as are in favor will signify by saying aye; opposed, no. The motion is car- ried. Proceed, Mr. Secretary. THE SECRETARY : 9, 10, 11. MR. ROBINS: The Secretary will be instructed to make the corrections between 20 per cent and 10 in section 9? THE CHAIRMAN : Yes. That will be taken care of. Proceed. THE SECRETARY : 12 MR. ROSENTHAL: In the sixth line of section 12, on page 118, it reads, “What shall- be payable only out of a specified portion of the recenue.” That would make it necessary for the city council to designate the portion. I now move to strike out the words, “specified portion,” which would simply make it payable out of the revenue. THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any objections? If not, all those in favor will signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. It is carried. Proceed. THE SECRETARY : 13. MR. McGOORTY : In section 9, the 20 per cent THE CHAIRMAN : That is already done. MR. McGOORTY : Yes. Well now, in section 10, Mr. Chairman, it provides that any bond — any proposition provid- ing for a bond issue can only be adopted by a two-thirds vote; it needs a two-thirds vote. Well now that the faith that the credit of the city is pledged on other propositions, that the majority vote is on, leads me to think, it seems to me to be evident that a two-thirds vote would make it very near, and often impossible to carry any proposition, because there are always enough people in a community like Chi- cago to muster more than one-third at least against any proposition. THE CHAIRMAN: This only ap- plies to bonds. It does not apply to certificates. MR. McGOORTY : I make the mo- tion, Mr. Chairman, to get it before the Convention, that the words “two- thirds,” be stricken out and the word “majority” be substituted. THE CHAIRMAN : You have heard the motion? MR. G. W. DIXON: Roll call. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll. MR. MERRIAM : It seems to me there is a different principle involved here. In the case of the bond issue you are pledging the credit of the city; therefore it might not seem unjust to require an extraordinary vote for that purpose. In the case of street railway companies, that are not involving the credit of the city, but they are merely securing the certificate issue; there it is different. All bond issues required under the charter, that will require a bond issue, must be approved by a majority. A bond issue as such, I think, might as well require the approval of two- thirds of the voters. MR. G. W. DIXON: Roll call. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Greenacre, McGoorty, Post, Robins, Vopicka. — 5. Nays — Badenoch, Beilfuss, Bennett, Brosseau, Brown, Burke, Church, Cole, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, J. W., Eid- mann, Fisher, Gansbergen, Harrison, Hill, Hunter, Jones, Kittleman, Lath- rop, Linehan, MacMillan, Merriam, Michaelis, O’Donnell, Owens, Raymer, Rosenthal, Shanahan, Snow, Taylor, Werno, White, Wilkins, Young, Zim- mer. — 35. (During roll call.) MR. ROBINS: I understand that the bonds that should be issued under this provision would have to be ap- March 1 1185 1907 proved by the city council by a majority vote issue? THE CHAIRMAN: The section that is sought to be amended is number 10 . MR. ROBINS: Yes; I know the sec- tion, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. ROBINS: I just asked the question, if, previous to the submission, the question would have to be passed on by the city council by a majority vote? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. ROBINS : I vote aye. THE CHAIRMAN: The vote is: Ayes, 5; nays, 35; and the motion is lost. The Secretary will proceed. THE SECRETARY: 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. THE CHAIRMAN : That concludes the section. MR. MERRIAM: I desire to have a correction made in article 4, sec- tion 7. 4 — 7. The section was amended at our last session to include the word “county.” I want to have included also the words “sanitary district.” The word “county” was left out, and I want to add, in addition to the word “coun- ty” the words “sanitary district.” THE CHAIRMAN: What section is that? MR. MERRIAM : Section 7, of article 1, page 63. That applies to the mem- bers of the city council not holding any other position in these various parties, excepting MR. G. W. DIXON: Question? THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor will vote aye MR. FISHER: I wish to offer an amendment to section 2 — on page 55, as follows: MR. ROBINS: What page? MR. FISHER: Fifty-five; section 57 on that page; the last section of that article. I wish to add the following item: “And no person who has already voted at a primary election held to nominate a candidate or candidates for any municipal office or offices, to be voted upon at any certain election, shall be disqualified thereby, from signing a petition of nomination for a candidate or candidates for the same office or offices, to be voted upon at the same cer- tain election.” I want to call the attention of the Convention to the fact that the argu- ment has been repeatedly made in this Convention in favor of the mainten- ance of the party column and of the party designation. And, that there was freedom of ac- tion with regard to independent nomi- nations, and that space could be taken under the law to put that independent candidate in nomination if the voter was not satisfied with the regular nomination. However, the law as it now stands, by that celebrated Gardner statute or amend- ment, provides that no party that has "Voted at a primary election shall have the right to sign a petition for an amendment. I know of no amendment to the election law ever adopted by the state legislature that aroused more opposi- tion of the intelligent portion of this community than that part of that par- ticular section of that particular statute. I am in accord with the doctrine that a man who signs a petition ought not to be permitted to vote at a primary election, he having decided that he wants another man not put in nomina- tion. But, the contrary proposition is sub- versive of all independence of voting, and will drive all men of mind or of opinion in regard to political matters out of the party. March 1 1186 1907 It is having that effect here to a certain extent in the nominations for alderman, and has had that effect since the Gardner law was adopted. Now, it seems to me that while the proposition upon the man that has signed a petition, that he should not be permitted to vote at a primary is right, it does not apply that a man who has voted at the primaries shall not have the right to sign a petition thereafter, if he is dissatisfied with the party. You all remember the convention, or most of you will at any rate, the con- vention held in this city which was a marked historical episode, in the his- tory of the Republican party, and which partly defeated the renomination of General Grant when the delegates of the state of West Virginia absolutely protested against the application of the gag rule, binding them to abide by the result of the convention, and a leader of that delegation who had fought for the republican party in the state of West Virginia when it was worth a man’s life to do so, who had, to my knowledge, introduced a negro on the platform, when it was worth his life to do it, and who had been a re- publican under circumstances which very few men in that convention could have claimed to have undergone, and that man said he absolutely repudiated the doctrine that a man should be bound by his participation in the ma- chinery of a political party so that he could not exercise his . independent choice thereafter, if, in his judgment the candidate of that party was abso- lutely unfit for him to support, and when he wanted to maintain his man- hood to that extent; That was Roscoe Conklin, and that convention nominated James A. Garfield for president. Now, from that time down I have not seen any man advocate the proposi- tion that a man should be bound by his participation in the machinery of a party, providing his conscience re- vplts lagainst the proposition of the supporting nominee. You cannot put up a name of a sole candidate, and the other party, with whose ideas he is absolutely at vari- ance, is not going to observe any in- dependence whatever. If the petition is going to be worth anything and not merely to do the thing that will be most deplored, but we shall provide that a man shall have a right to sign the petition if he desires and only that he shall be barred from voting at the party primaries, if pre- vious to that time he shall have signed a petition. I move the adoption of the amendment. THE CHAIRMAN : The question is upon Mr. Fisher’s amendment. MR. FISHER: Roll call. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secre- tary call the roll. Yeas — Badenoch, Bennett, Brosseau, Burke, Cole, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, J. W., Fisher, Greenacre, Harrison, Jones, Lathrop, Linehan, McCormick, McGoorty, Merriam, Michaelis, O’Don- nell, Owens, Post, Robins, Rosenthal, Snow, Taylor, Vopicka, Werno, White, Young, Zimmer.— 29. Nays — Brown, Church, Eidmann, Gansbergen, Hill, Hunter, Kittleman, MacMillan, Raymer, Shanahan. — 10. THE CHAIRMAN: Ayes 29, and nays 10. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Merriam. MR. MERRIAM: On page 58 I would like to move to strike out num- ber 8. THE CHAIRMAN: That will re- quire reconsideration, Mr. Merriam. MR. MERRIAM: Well, I move to reconsider them. THE CHAIRMAN: What page is that? MR. MERRIAM : Page 58, No. 8— March 1 1187 1907 I would like to have the unanimous con- sent for reconsideration. THE CHAIRMAN: How did you vote on the proposition? MR. MERRIAM: I voted aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Section 8 of article 4, Corrupt Practice, Mr. Mer- riam moves to reconsider that section. All those in favor signify by saying aye; all those opposed, no. Carried. MR. MERRIAM : And the reason, Mr. Chairman, is there might be some doubt as to how that would work out in the practice, which reads, “No po- litical committee and no person acting under its authority or in its behalf, shall demand, solicit, ask or invite from a candidate for nomination or election, while in the office, the payment of money or promise of payment of money to be used in such election.” While this" section is found in most of the laws regarding corrupt practice, I am inclined to think, on more ma- ture consideration, that that is hard to grasp, and if a candidate not directly solicited, the chances are if he indirectly solicited in some roundabout circuitous way which, in the long run, would amount to about the same sort of thing. We have trimmed the law down as far as possible to those provisions that are actually carried out, and in view of the fact that there is some doubt about that I think it better be omitted. THE CHAIRMAN : There is a mo- tion — MR. MERRIAM : To strike out sec- tion 8. THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Merriam moves to strike out section 8 — are you ready for the question? All those in favor signify by saying aye; those op- posed, no. Carried. MR. POST : Mr. Chairman, now I would like to move an amendment MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Post. MR. POST : On page 130—19—2, as I understand the vote at the time, we required the appointment of school trus- tees for three years. I do not under- stand that we authorized a prior ap- pointment for one year as it is in the draft, and I would like to make a mo- tion to restore that to the condition of the vote, namely, that these appointees shall be for three years — for the first three years MR. BEILFUSS : What page is that? MR. POST: Page 130. THE CHAIRMAN: Number 2 of article 19. MR. POST : Mr. Chairman, I am told we are up against a problem of mathematics when we are up against that. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the motion, Mr. Post ? THE SECRETARY : The motion is withdrawn. THE CHAIRMAN : The motion is withdrawn — there are a number of things MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Rosenthal. MR. ROSENTHAL: I had a mo- tion to reconsider, I think it is, section 14 15 6 and 7 MR. POST : Just give me a moment, Mr. Chairman ; we have been misin- formed ; this is not a mathematical proposition; the proposition I am op- posing is that when the first seven mem- , bers are through there shall be five ap- pointed in its place, not for one year but three ; when the second seven, not for one year but for three, and so with the third seven. Now I don’t see any mathematical doctrine there. In the draft you have it one year the first, and then the successive three. I move to make it three years from the beginning; that is the way we decided. THE CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen, you have heard the motion. March 1 1188 1907 MR. POST : It is simply a correc- tion, and that is the motion as we passed it. THE CHAIRMAN: It is simply corrected so that when the first five terms expire MR. POST : So when the first seven — when their term expires, five will be appointed in their place, not for one year as the draft has it, but for three years as we voted it, and so with the second and so with the third. THE CHAIRMAN : The correction will be made as requested unless there is objection — now, Mr. Rosenthal. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chair- man, I give notice to move the recon- sideration of section 14 — S — 6 and 7, that is on page 109 and page 110, and the more I considered those particular sec- tions, the more confusion I think there will be caused. I would like to say something about the motion when the motion to reconsider is carried. THE CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen, you have heard the motion to reconsider; all those in favor of the motion say aye; those opposed, nay. Carried. MR. ROSENTHAL: Now, Mr. Chairman, I have a substitute for all of those three sections MR. BEILFUSS: What page? THE CHAIRMAN: Pages 109 and 110 in the revised draft. THE SECRETARY (reading mo- tion) : By Mr. Rosenthal: “Any map, plat or subdivision of land lying within the limits of the City of Chicago shall, before being entitled to record in the office of the recorder of Cook county, be submitted for approval to the city council or to some officer designated by it in order to secure the conformity of such map, plat or subdivision to the system or plan of streets, alleys and public places established by or under any statute, ordinance, and to any other lawful requirements.” MR. ROSENTHAL: Now, Mr. Chairman, that is a substitute to sec- tion 6. THE CHAIRMAN: Will you gen- tlemen pay attention ; this is section 6. MR. ROSENTHAL: The purpose of that is that the recorder of deeds has stated that, as a matter of practical experience, it is impossible for the men in their office to tell whether any plat or subdivision does, in reality, affect any street or alley or other highway or some public regulation, and they seem to think that they are the persons who are best posted on this proposition, that it is a mistake to allow a plat af- fecting city property and which may directly involve some street or other public property or some public regula- tion, to be recorded without first hav- ing had it approved. It does not seem there is any par- ticular hardship to designate some of- ficer to approve the plat. That is the object of that particular provision moved in the substitution of section 6. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? MR. McGOORTY : Mr. Chairman, I would like to know whether this is just a substitution for section 6. MR. ROSENTHAL: For section 6, I want to be heard on the other. MR. McGOORTY : There is no mo- tion now to strike out 4 and 5? MR. ROSENTHAL : Not at present. THE CHAIRMAN : All those in fa- vor of the substitution say aye; those opposed, nay. Carried. THE CHAIRMAN : Now, Mr. Ros- enthal. MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chair- man, we have a statute that has been in force for quite a number of years, and which section 2 of the statute of dedi- cation of streets, alleys and highways is found on page 39 to 77 of Star & Cur- tis — 39 to 78, and that provides that when any plat is vacated that the title of the owner shall extend to the center March 1 1189 1907 of the street, and that refers to the statutory plat. We have also another statute in re- gard to plats, which attempts to cover this matter quite fully. Now here we are endeavoring, by adopting section 5 and 7, to have some special law ap- plicable to the City of Chicago. The Supreme Court has held that if, as a matter of fact, it be vested in the city, then it is impossible for the legislature to invest property with a title, but what I mean to say in regard to this particular section it does not seem to me it has anything to do with the charter; it is a matter of general law which ought to be covered by a general law, and we ought not to signal out a section on dedication or a section on plats of particular provisions and in fact an amendment. I stated the other night I thought it was a rather slipshod way of doing; I meant no insult to this assembly or anything of that sort; but I do think we made a mistake in the adoption of the special section relating to particular principles of law instead of handling the whole question and doing it in a way that, instead of being cleared up, the City of Chicago will be more con- fused than they are at the present time. MR. SNOW: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Snow. MR. SNOW : I cannot agree with Mr. Rosenthal on this proposition to amend section 5 as indicated. Condi- tions do arise, and arise very frequently, in a city such as Chicago, where it is necessary, in order that industrial estab- lishments may be established, that streets and alleys which have been platted and which are no longer of use to the public, should be vacated. It does not appear that the public interest in the city council is in favor of that vacation. Now the intention of section 5, as I understand it, is that where the city council or the city shall see fit to va- cate a street or an alley they shall be able to pass title to the parties for whom it is vacated, and at the same time there shall be a provision to charge for that property at the full value. It seems to me that is a prop- osition that should be left in the char- ter. 1 HE CHAIRMAN : Are you ready for the question upon Mr. Rosenthal’s substitution? The Secretary will call the roll — the Secretary will read the substitution of Mr. Rosenthal for sec- tion. 7. MR. HUNTER: For section 7? THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosen- thal’s substitution for section 7. MR. ROSENTHAL : No, my mo- tion is to strike out sections 5 and 7. THE CHAIRMAN: To strike out 5 and 7 and substitute your motion. MR. ROSENTHAL: Might I be permitted to say just a word in relation to what Alderman Snow said. THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, if you will come to order we will get through quicker. MR. ROSENTHAL: I just want to say one word in relation to Alderman Snow. The subdivisions that can at the present time be affected are only the subdivisions in outlying territory, because, as far as the subdivisions down town are concerned, or the subdivisions in the main portion of the city, their rights are already vested and fixed, and you cannot, by your charter, transfer those rights at the present time ; they are vested, and that has been held. Now just for the sake of collecting rents in a few outlying subdivisions, it seems to me it is a great mistake to pass a general law of this sort, to af- fect the general doctrine at the present time. THE CHAIRMAN : Are you ready for the question — let the Secretary read March 1 1190 1907 the amendment — the substitution for 5 and 7. MR. ROSENTHAL: Well just strike out sections 5 and 7. THE CHAIRMAN: To strike out 5 and 7 — the Secretary will call the roll. Yeas — Badenoch, Brown, Burke, Church, Cole, Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Greenacre, Hill, Jones, Kittleman, Lathrop, Linehan, MacMillan, O’Don- nell, Owens, Pendarvis, Raymer, Rosen- thal, Shanahan, Taylor, Young. — 22. Nays — Beilfuss, Bennett, Brosseau, Dixon, G. W., Fisher, Harrison, Hunter, McGoorty, Merriam, Post, Robins, Snow, Vopicka, Werno, Zimmer. — 15. THE CHAIRMAN : On Mr. Rosen- thal’s resolution the ayes are 22 and the nays 15, and the motion is carried. That completes the discussion of the charter, gentlemen. MR. COLE : Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cole. MR. COLE: Mr. Chairman, I move the charter be adopted as read. THE CHAIRMAN : There is a mo- tion that the charter be adopted MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. McCor- mick. MR. McCORMICK: There is a matter before the Charter Convention of section 6 that I was speaking about; the matter is still pending before the Convention. THE CHAIRMAN: What is that? MR. McCORMICK: All right. MR. PENDARVIS : Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pendarvis. MR. PENDARVIS : I wanted to ask a question, Mr. Chairman, about the language of section 1, article 6. MR. RAYMER: What page? MR. PENDARVIS: Page 69. In the second paragraph of that section, “Any power by this charter conferred or duties imposed upon any officers created by ordinance, shall, if the office designated by the charter shall be abol- ished by the city council, be performed by the officer or officers upon whom the powers and duties of the office abolished are devolved.” The question is, whether that lan- guage is as clear as it ought to be. I think there might be a serious question there, Mr. Chairman, whether or not you are not attempting by implication to confer upon the council the power to abolish charter offices. THE CHAIRMAN: Well I think the only objection to that is that the officer substituted the duties, and the Secretary will make a note and the language will be so cleared up as to make the intention perfectly clear. MR. POST: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Post. MR. POST: Mr. Chairman, I would like my resolution now, I think this is the proper time for that to be presented. THE CHAIRMAN: One moment, there seems to be some reconsidering propositions — what is it Mr. Snow? MR. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, I sim- ply desire to call the attention of the Convention to Section 14, Article 16, I should have done that — THE SECRETARY: What page? MR. SNOW: Page 120. Under that the authority is given the city to go into the business of maintaining, operating and constructing elevators, warehouses and vaults, whatever that may mean. Now I for one, believe there should be some lines of industry left for private parties to pursue, and for that reason I would like leave to strike out the words “And in connection therewith elevators, warehouses and vaults.” THE CHAIRMAN: That would be a motion to reconsider Mr. Snow. MR. SNOW: I make the motion to reconsider then. March 1 1191 1907 THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor of the motion signify by say- ing, aye; all those opposed, no. Car- ried. MR. SNOW: Section 14, Article 16. Now, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out, “And in connection there- with, elevators, warehouses and vaults.” leaving the city authority to own and operate wharfs, docks and levees, but not the business of going into the business of grain elevators, coal bunkers or anything of that kind, which, in my opinion would be private enterprises. THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will call the roll. MR. POST: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Post. MR. POST: If we are going to reconsider this charter all of the way through we will have to take another day to do it. Here is a proposition that reaches a vital point, the city is given control of wharves, docks and levees and in connection therewith elevators, warehouses and vaults. In other words, if you reconsider this you are authorizing the establishment of the operation of elevators in con- nection with a city enterprise, wharves, and so forth and we are go- ing to tear this all to pieces again then let us understand that we are going to do it in other respects. I did not suppose we were to have a reconsideration of anything like this when the vote was taken, and I hope, Mr. Chairman, that this will be voted down. MR. ROBINS: The question be- fore us is not to strike out these words or whether the proposition is going to be made practical or not; whether or not the city is going to be in position to do this, if it passes it, taking into consideration the mod- ern industrial requirements in the operation of docks, and so forth, whether they would be able to do these other things. Wherever the city does work of this kind, it car- ries vaults and warehouses in con- nection with that. Now, if you want to do that thing, all right, but some of us want to know whether the other question will apply. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Sec- retary call the roll. Yeas — Badenoch, Brown, Hill, Hunter, Lathrop, McCormick, Pen- darvis, Post, Rosenthal, Snow — 11. Nays — Beilfuss, Bennett, Brosseau, Burke, Church, Cole, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, Eidman, Fisher, Greenacre, Harrison, Jones, Kittleman, Linehan, MacMillan, McGoorty, Merriam, Michaelis, O’Donnell, Owens, Robins, Taylor, Vopicka, Werno, White, Young, Zimmer — 28. THE CHAIRMAN: The result of the vote is as follows: The yeas are, 11; the nays are, 28, and the mo- tion is lost. MR. YOUNG: It seems to me we have spent much time and much ef- fort, and have arrived at what seems to me to be a conclusion. We might go over all this ground again. No doubt some of us have had to give up some of our own ideas in order that we may bring out a charter that would be entirely satis- factory to everyone. Now, I think we ought to stop at once bringing up these questions, and adopt the charter as a whole. T be- lieve we should accept the resolution of this Convention, and do what we can to secure the adoption of this charter. I move that we accept the charter. THE CHAIRMAN: That is the motion of Mr. Cole, which is before the house. MR. McMILLAN: In order that we may come to a direct vote on that question, I move the previous question. March 1 1192 1907 MR. BADENOCH: In the article on the Board of Education there is just one word that has been left out. Inasmuch as all kinds of schools are specified except night schools, I now move to insert night schools after the words “including normal schools and night schools.” Because the night schools are not specified. THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection it will be inserted. MR. BADENOCH: That will be inserted? THE CHAIRMAN: That will be inserted. MR. MACMILLAN: Let us vote on the previous question and stop all this other business. If you are going over the question, I will stay here until fall, but I want to see this Convention dispose of the mater before it gets very dark. It has been very dark all the afternoon, — to some of us. MR. PENDARVIS: Mr. Chair- man: — THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will put the previous question as soon as Mr. Pendarvis yields the floor. MR. PENDARVIS: You have here a provision that this act shall be cited as the charter of the city of Chicago. That matter has not been discussed on the floor, and it seems to me this provision will not sufficiently avail, be- cause this act is not to be the charter of the City of Chicago, and it will be incorrect to cite this as a charter of the City of Chicago. It adds nothing to it, and it seems to me we are making a mistake by in- cluding any such provision as that, and that we ought not to bring it out. It is not material. It may tend to confusion in the fu- ture, and I now move that that article be omitted. THE CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen, you have heard the motion. As many as are in favor will signify by saying aye; opposed, no ; it is carried. Shall the main question be put? THE CHAIRMAN : As many as are in favor will signify by saying aye; op- posed, no. Carried. The question is: Mr. Cole’s motion, that the charter be approved and adopted. All those in favor will signify by saying aye MR. POST: Roll call. THE CHAIRMAN: Let there be a roll call. THE SECRETARY: Yeas — Badenoch, Beilfuss, Bennett, Brosseau, Burke, Cole, Dixon, G. W., Eckhart, J. W., Eidmann, Fisher, Green- acre, Harrison, Hunter, Lathrop, Line- han, MacMillan, McCormick, Merriam, Michaelis, O’Donnell, Owens, Pendar- vis, Raymer, Robins, Rosenthal, Snow, Taylor, Vopicka, Werno, White, Young, Zimmer. — 32. Nays — 0. Present, but not voting — Foreman (chairman), Brown, Church, Hill, Jones, Kittleman, McGoorty, Post, Shan- ahan — 9. (During roll call.) MR. CHURCH : In explanation of my position, I simply want to say that, as a member of the general assembly, I expect to do all in my power to aid the advancement of this charter sub- stantially, as it is presented here, and yet there are some provisions in it which I cannot commend, and, in view of that fact, and in order that my vote on this matter now might be taken as indicating my position on it later on, I desire to be recorded as present and not voting. MR. GREENACRE: Mr. Chairman, I desire to say this much in explaining my vote : Of course none of us have had the chance to read over that charter, or to see what we do here, finally. March I 1193 3907 Reserving, then, the right to pass on it when it comes up finally, as it will come before the legislature and be sub- mitted to the people, and take such position on it then as it may then war- rant, even though it may be in its pres- ent or altered, and only for the pur- pose of getting before the legislature and to get it in shape, either this one or one that is better^-for that reason, and sustaining that right, I vote aye. MR. HILL : I think I desire to be recorded as present and not voting. Under the oath w r e have taken as legislators, there may be some points that will have to be made differently when we come to analyze this matter. While f desire to support this mea- sure as it is reached here, still I do not wish to be criticised on any such ground. MR. HUNTER: I desire to be passed, for the reason that there are many things in the charter provisions, that I cannot consistently vote aye. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentlemen will be passed. MR. HUNTER : That is all right. MR. JONES: I, as a member of the legislature, wish to make a state- ment : I am willing to accept this charter as the average judgment of the mem- bers of this Convention, and of the people of the City of Chicago, whom they represent. Up to this time I have occupied the position as an advocate, and have par- ticipated in the votes and the argu- ments. From this time on, as the charter comes before the legislature, I am re- quired to assume a more or less ju- dicial position, in which I shall have to consider what will be the best aver- age judgment of the state at large, and not the City of Chicago alone. For that reason I do not wish to par- ticipate in the final vote, and shall ask to be excused. MR. KITTLEMAN: Mr. Chair- man, I feel like expressing myself sim- ilarly to the other members of the legislature. Now, there is nobody so anxious to have it passed as I am, and there are not many things — I do not know that there are any that I would not vote for, if it meant the passing of the char- ter. But, with this explanation, I would like to be passed from voting on it. MR. M’GOORTY : Mr. Chairman: I desire to be in accord with the other gentlemen of the legislature. I should like, however, as voting for the charter, with the understanding that, as a legis- lator, that I be free to exercise my in- dependent judgment. However, under the circumstances, I will refrain from voting. MR. MERRIAM : I did not come into the charter convention with the understanding or idea that my vote for or against the charter, as a whole, would depend on whether or not there were things in here that I did not agree with. If I had, I would have better kept out. Mr. Cole and I, I believe the day be- fore the convention, agreed to pledge ourselves, if the other gentlemen would do likewise, to accept this charter from this convention. I do not see how a man can act on principle and do other- wise. The people of the City of Chicago are desirous of home rule, and if they are not willing to abide by the resolutions they have determined, who will? There are many things in the charter that I have objected to from time to tyne. I think the roll call will show I have been active. I have tried to take it with good grace. I think it will be regarded as one of the best charters that has been framed in recent years in this country. March 1 1194 1907 Therefore I vote aye. MR. O’DONNELL: Mr. Chairman, with the exception of making the term of aldermen four years, and at the same time doubling their salary, and giving the control of the Board of Education into the hands of six men — with those exceptions I am in favor of this charter as presented. I will vote aye upon this charter, re- serving the right as a citizen of Chicago to do all I can to defeat both those sec- tions of the charter. I vote aye. MR. PENDARVIS : In voting to ap- prove the charter now submitted, I do not consider that I bind myself to cer- tain things here that I regard as not in accord with the constitutional amend- ment. For the most part, I am satisfied with the work. As a matter of practical policy, I agree with Brother O’Donnell on the question of the term of aldermen. That is merely a question of policy. But, we have put into this charter a question regarding the powers of the council, and authorizing the council to amend this charter, which I regard as absolutely inconsistent with and antago- nistic to the powers conferred by the constitutional amendment, and I believe it will be so held if it is ever subjected to construction. The constitutional amendment never contemplated that the city council should be given power to amend this charter. With that statement, Mr. Chairman, I vote aye. MR. POST : Mr. Chairman : Unlike Mr. Merriam, I did not come into this convention with any de- termination to be absolutely governed by its decisions. If it has been a repre- sentative convention, elected by the peo- ple — as it ought to have been — and I had been selected to sit in it, then I should have considered that whatever conclu- sion that convention came to, I should fall in with the rest of the members. I did come, however, into this conven- tion with the full determination that if the members, even though appointed instead of elected, should formulate a home rule charter, a fair and good charter, that even if I did not like it in many respects, I would support it. Now, this charter is full of things that I do not like, and that I may have to fight again. I do not know. It is full of such things. At the same time, as I survey the situation, I am inclined to think that if the final draft represents what I now understand to have been the conclusions of this convention, I shall support the charter ; but we # have not got that draft before us. I have not been able to read even the draft that we have hammered over today. I am unwilling to commit myself to a charter the contents of which I do not know, and all the more so when I find that the legislative repre- sentatives here will not say what they could or would do. - They are all of them, or nearly all of them, declining to vote; so we are utterly in the dark as to what they will do after they get the charter. MR. PRESIDENT: In general, but specifically on the ground that I do not know yet what the draft does or will contain, and cannot say whether I will support the charter or not until I find out what is in the draft that we are now adopting, what it will con- tain, I am going to ask to be allowed to have my vote passed. THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed. MR. ROSENTHAL : Mr. Chairman : I think it is rather unfortunate that in the closing hours of this convention so many of us should express sentiments which will go forth to the people and make it appear that the work of this convention was entirely without value. March 1 1195 1907 I think in the case of every one of us there must necessarily be provisions in this charter which do not meet with our personal approval, and this charter nec- essarily expresses the composite judg- ment and the compromise; but, as it seems to me to be, this charter, as a whole, in the manner in which it is drafted, or substantially so, our work here will not have been entirely in vain. Therefore I vote aye. MR. SHANAHAN : I stated, at the beginning of this convention, that I re- served my right to vote as I saw fit, as a member of the legislature. I have attended every session of this convention and have done everything in my power to aid and to try and secure as good a charter for Chicago as pos- sible. I am very frank to say, that with the exception of three sections of this char- ter, I am willing to go into the legisla- ture Tuescday morning and vote for the charter. I believe the record will show that I stated that in the legislature I intended to vote there as I have voted here. I beg now to be excused from voting. MR. VOPICKA : Mr. Chairman: There are many things in this charter that I do not approve of, but, on the whole, it is a good work, a good piece or work, and it is a compromise meas- ure for which I believe I should work, and accept the provisions of this charter as voted upon by this convention. I vote aye. MR. HUNTER: Record me as voting aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hunter changes his vote from no to aye. MR. HUNTER: I did not. THE CHAIRMAN: What? MR. HUNTER: I did not vote at all. THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, I beg your pardon. MR. BROWN: I wish to be re- corded as being present but not vot- ing. MR. BURKE: Some of the mem- bers of this convention, and the mem- bers of the legislature, are a little careful about their records, and I think we ought to have a roll call on the absentees here, so that all the members of the legislature may get under cover promptly. MR. MacMILLAN: I would sug- gest, as a way of getting at the roll call, that the secretary call the roll as he has it, so that we may have a veri- fied roll call publicly made now; then the men will know where they stand, and whether they are properly record- ed. THE CHAIRMAN: The secretary will verify the roll. THE SECRETARY: Those voting Yea — Badenoch, Beilfuss, Bennett, Brosseau, Burke, Cole, Dixon (G. W.), Eckhart (J. W.), Eidmann, Fisher, Greenacre, Harrison, Hunter, La- throp, Linehan, MacMillan, McCor- mick, Merriam, Michaelis, O’Donnell, Owens, Pendarvis, Raymer, Robins, Rosenthal, Snow, Taylor, Vopicka, Werno, White, Young, Zimmer — 32. Those voting Nay— None — 0. Those present but not voting — Foreman, Chairman; Brown, Church, Hill, Jones, Kittleman, McGoorty, Post, Shanahan — 9. Those absent — Baker, Beebe, Carey, Clettenberg, Crilly, Dever, Dixon (T. J.), Eckhart (B. A.), Erickson, Gans- bergen, Graham, Guerin, Haas, Hoyne, Lundberg, McKinley, Oehne, Paullin, Powers, Rainey, Revell, Ri- naker, Ritter, Sethness, Shedd, Shep- ard, Smulski, Sunny, Swift, Thomp- son, Walker, Wilkins, Wilson— 33. THE CHAIRMAN: Let me have the roll call, please. There were forty members present; 32 members voted March 1 1196 1907 aye; none vote no. Eight not voting. Quorum being present the motion is carried. MR. SHANAHAN: I offer a resolu- tion, and move its adoption as follows: Resolved, That the Chairman is hereby directed to deliver the charter adopted by this Convention to the Chairman of the respective Charter Committees of the Senate and House of the General Assembly for introduction, and be it further, Resolved, That he be authorized to appoint a Committee of which he shall be Chairman to further the interests of the Charter before the General Assem- bly. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? MR. POST: Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of my resolution. I think it is competent now. THE CHAIRMAN : All those in favor of Mr. Shanahan’s resolution sig- nify the same by saying ‘ 1 aye. ’ ’ Op- posed, “No.” Carried. MR. COLE: Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer the following resolution, which I will read, if you please: MR. POST: Mr. Chairman, I think I know what resolution Mr. Cole refers to ; and I think really my motion comes first. THE CHAIRMAN: Let Mr. Post’s resolution be read. THE SECRETARY: By Mr. Post: Resolved, That when this Convention adjourns after action upon the final draft of the Charter, now under consid- eration, it adjourn subject to the call of the Chair. MR. POST: I move its adoption. THE CHAIRMAN : All those in favor of the resolution say “aye.” Op- posed, “No.” Carried. Mr. Cole. MR. COLE: I move the adoption of the following resolution: Resolved, That we hereby tender to the Honorable Milton J. Foreman, Chairman of the Chicago Charter Con- vention, our sincere thanks for his uni- form courtesy and great assistance as the presiding officer of this Convention. His impartial rulings and the able way in which he has given every member and idea a full hearing and then led out deliberations up to the point where an intelligent vote could be taken on all subjects, mark him as an ideal presid- ing officer for a deliberative body of this kind. We with pleasure accord to him that full meed of credit to which he is justly entitled for the success of the Chicago Charter Convention. MR. COLE: Now is there any sec- onder. You can all have the floor. (Many cries of “Second.”) MR. POST: Will Mr. Cole allow me to say a word? MR. COLE: Mr. Post, I will leave it to you. MR. POST: I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, that I have never seconded a resolution with more pleasurable feel- ings than I do this. I have always un- derstood as a member of a convention that the presiding officer has to see to it that the body over which he presides shall truly express itself as it wishes to express itself. That the minority at all times shall have its due and fair rights and that the majority shall ex- press itself as it desires. In other words, that the Convention shall decide exactly as it desires. I do not say it in any perfunctory way; I would not speak to a motion in any perfunctory way, and I do not say one word per- functorily in any way; but I want to say in all sincerity that while I have sat in many bodies I have never sat in any body in which I found that the chairman was so absolutely fair, and so thoroughly determined upon giving full, complete, and truthful expression to the sentiments of the body over which he presided. (Applause.) March 1 1197 1907 I most gratefully second that resolu- tion. MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman— MR. COLE: Mr. Fisher. MR. FISHER: I want to add just one word to what Mr. Post has said. I want to pay tribute to the ability of our Chairman to expedite business, and get things done. (Applause.) MR. O’DONNELL: I want to say that I have had a little experience, too, in deliberative assemblies. 1 was a member of the Hlinois Legislature for four successive terms, and I have had quite a little experience in meetings here in our great City of Chicago, and I am quite sure that I have never seen a fairer, more impartial presiding officer than Mr. Foreman has been over this Convention. I want to thank you personally for the kindness and courtesy to myself and to all the members of the Convention. I assure you that I am delighted to know that there is a man in the City of Chicago so fair and so impartial as to govern a body of this character so fairly and impartially as Mr. Foreman has done. (Applause.) MR. GREENACRE: I am one of the tail enders. There are three or four of us, I believe, but I don’t know how many. When I came here I fully ex- pected that all the work was done. As I understand it was passed upon in principle. I did not suppose there was much left for us to Ho, and what there was was of a perfunctory nature. Had I not known the Chairman, I would have expected that we would be sat upon regularly and often, as perhaps we deserved, and where the position might have warranted it. But I want to say that the treatment we have received at the hands of the Chairman, and the other members, is something that we shall remember pleasurably, and I am pleased to have come in late, and to add my testimony for myself and for the other tailsmen with me. I think we all join in the expressions of the body, and I know we all are sincerely thankful for the way in which the Chair- man has carried out his duties, and handled his position, here in the con- vention, and expedited the business. (Applause.) MR. COLE: All those in favor of the pending resolution stand up. (All the members of the convention stood, and the resolution was adopted by acclamation.) MR. COLE: Mr. Chairman, there are no contraries. MR. McGOORTY: Mr. Chairman— MR. G. W. DIXON: I have a reso- lution to be introduced and because of its nature I would like to read the same. Resolved, That we hereby tender to the Honorable M. L. McKinley, Secre- tary of the Chicago Charter Convention, and to the Honorable Henry Barrett Chamberlain, Assistant Secretary there- of, our thanks and appreciation for their most efficient service to this Con- vention and their uniform courtesy to its members. MR. DIXON : I ask that that be adopted by a rising vote. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentlemen have heard the motion. All those in favor please rise. (The members of the convention stood, and the resolution was adopted.) MR, COLE: We are indebted, Mr. Chairman, especially to the secretary — MR, POST: I do not wish to deal out compliments, except where we so desire, but I think we should deal out one more. I have had occasion to go to the headquarters of this convention fre- quently, and I have found not only Mr. McKinley and Mr. Chamberlain, but all those assisting them, have been courte- ous and of great assistance. I have also had great assistance from Mr. March 1 1198 1907 Chamberlain’s assistant, whose name I don’t know, but I would like to have it aded to this vote. THE CHAIRMAN: AH those in favor of that proposition signify the same by saying aye; opposed no. Car- ried. THE CHAIRMAN: That, so far, completes our work. MR. FISHER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fisher. MR. FISHER: I would not crowd resolutions, but there is a gentleman, who has done a lot of work in connec- tion with this convention, who ought not to have been forgotten — THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair was about to refer to him. MR. FISHER: It seems to me that a resolution is due from the members of this Convention for the most efficient service that has been rendered to it, and that by a gentleman who is not a member of this Convention. We are under obligation for the services that have been rendered from a disinterested and public-spirited point of view, by Professor Freund, the draftsman of this charter. (Applause.) I move the adoption of a vote of thanks by this Convention, by a rising vote. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor of that, will please rise. (The members of the Convention stood, and adopted the motion with enthusiasm.) THE CHAIRMAN: Carried. Now, gentlemen, if I may have the floor — Mr. Church, do you desire to be heard? MR. CHURCH: Mr. Chairman, there seems to have been an expression of feeling in regard to a few of the members, as to a vote taken, and the fact that the members of the General Assembly who are present and partici- pated in the deliberation this afternoon, may possibly be hostile to this Charter; or, at least, did not appreciate the work that is represented in this Charter, which is now before us, and has been adopted. I have no authority to speak for my colleagues, but I believe I voice their sentiment when I say they appre- ciate thoroughly the work which has been done on this Charter. I think the Charter, as a whole is a magnificent piece of work, and something which the City of Chicago can well be proud of. I believe that in taking the position we have assumed here, that we have done it honestly and conscientiously, with the idea of finding that later on we will be called upon to meet this ques- tion. In view of all the circumstances that this will be sent down to pass the General Assembly, it was thought that might affect us in the position we took on this question. I assure you we ap- preciate thoroughly the work that has been done on this Charter, and everyone of us will do all we can to see that it will substantially pass through. MR. LINEHAN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, that as far as this goes, it has been quite an experience to me, and before I retire here, let me suggest that the best I can offer is this; that if the members of the Convention will organize, I will take pleasure in proposing them as delegates to the Fed- eration of Labor. (Laughter.) MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman, I wish to endorse what has been said by Mr. Church. I thought there were remarks made by one or two members as to the members of the Legislature, which might be misunderstood. I am sure we all fully appreciate the efforts that have been made here. But we also realize that this is to be taken up again before us, section by section, for closer analysis; more close analysis, possibly, than .has been granted here by some parties; and that we stand, I think, in the same relation to this body, as the other gentlemen. If you are to have this brought be- March 1 1199 1907 fore you again for any other analysis, and for consideration, we do not wish to be put in the position that we do not wish to criticise anything that we might feel calls upon and forced to do for its benefit. I have not been able to attend the meetings very much, but I have attended them as far as it has been in my power, and I do appreciate the work that has been accomplished, and I hope we shall be able to bring back a bill or a Charter substantially the same. I hope so, and I earnestly pledge myself that I shall work to that end. ME. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, fully appreciating the services of our Chair- man, and being in full accord, I doubt not with his own sentiments, and with every member of this Convention, I move that we recognize by a rising vote our appreciation of the initiative given to this convention through the able and personal services put into that initia- tive by Judge Orrin N. Carter, who was our first chairman. I move that a rising vote of thanks be extended to Judge Carter. THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor of that, please rise. (The members of the convention stood and adopted the motion.) THE CHAIRMAN: Carried. MR. KITTLEMAN: Mr. Chairman, now I hope the reporter has got my lan- guage as I stated it, because I consid- ered it quite carefully. You will note that I said if it came to a show down I probably would vote for everything in this Charter. I only reserved the right down there to change some things that I think might be changed to good advantage, but other- wise I am with this Charter, and if I have to be for it as it is, I am for it. MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I regret exceedingly that in the pleasant clos- ing hours of this convention some of the members have questioned the motives of the members of the Legislature who are also members of this Convention. I had hoped that before this roll call was taken a resolution would have been presented, suggesting that the members of the Legislature, in view of their dual capacity, be excused from voting. I was indeed surprised, after we got up one after another and requested that this Convention excuse us from voting, that there were innuendoes passed upon the floor of this convention questioning the motives of men who have sat in this Convention and who have deliberated, and who are now called to pass in judg- ment upon this Charter that is advo- cated by the people of the City of Chicago. Now, I, for one, agree willingly, as I said before, to go down to Springfield, and to fight, and to fight earnestly and lustily in favor of this Charter; but I wish to call your attention to the fact that the other members of the Legisla- ture have extended to us the courtesy of having placed us on Charter com- mittees, who are a majority of Chicago men, and I submit it would be very unwise in this Convention to send down to Springfield men who have sat on this Convention, and whose minds have closed — at least, men who have been voting as advocates of this Char- ter, and unwilling to concede changes in the Charter. Now, I regret it exceedingly, too, that in talking with certain men, and certain eminent men in the City of Chicago, I have been taken to task, be- cause I have said, that if the country members of the Legislature were able to prevail upon my judgment, that some of the provisions of the Charter as adopted by this Convention, were erro- neous, founded upon wrong principles, that I would vote in favor of a change in this Charter. I was told I would be lax in my duties, I would be disloyal to March 1 1200 1907 my city to accept such a proposition from a country member. Now, in view of the fact that there are many broad gauge and broad- minded men in this Convention who have told me just the opposite thing, that they expect me to go down there and use my judgment, and my best judgment in my capacity as a legisla- tor, I thought it would be proper that this Convention should suggest to us that we do not vote; and when they did not, it seemed to me perfectly proper, in order to preserve a proper attitude as members of the Legislature, that we should request that we be excused. I trust, therefore, that it will be made plain, not only to the members of the Convention, but to the City of Chicago, and to the members, the country mem- bers of the Legislature, that this Con- vention concurs entirely in the request of the members of the Legislature, who are also members of this Convention, to be excused from voting upon this final vote with respect to the adoption of the Charter as a whole. ME. YOPICKA: Mr. Chairman, I move that every member of the Con- vention be furnished with a corrected copy of the proceedings of this Con- vention. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state that an opportunity will be given each member to correct the minutes as far as they relate to him, and that when all the corrections are made, they will be published in book form, and each member of the Convention will get a copy. MR. POST: Mr. Chairman, in refer- ence to what Senator Jones has said, I would like to make one remark. He did not mention anybody, but I as- sumed that the Senator in what he said, referred to me. MR. JONES: I did not. MR. POST: I wish to assure him, and all the other members of the Con- vention, I had no intention whatever in my mind, to impute motives at all to the members of the Legislature. That was not in my mind. The point I wished to make, and probably failed to make, was this: That the members of the Legislature sitting in this Conven- tion, are not members of both bodies by any accident. They are in this body as representatives of the Legislature, and they were appointed here by the Legis- lature, and it strikes me that they ought to give some expression here to the Legislative purpose as representatives of the Legislature. But in no sense did I intend to reflect whatever to any ex- tent on the motives of those members. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any- one else that wants the floor? If not, the chair would like to say a few words. (Applause.) You all know the necessities that re- * quired the convening of this Conven- tion. The constitutional amendment was adopted upon a plea of the City of Chicago, that under it a charter could be drawn that would be adequate for its needs, and that the city would not any longer worry the Legislature with its continual demands. When such Con- vention was constituted by law, it was deemed wise to have one in the form that this has taken. I doubt whether in the United States a more representa- tive — in the broadest sense of the word — set of men or a more patriotic body of men ever met. This Convention assembled over a year ago, and an inspection of the roll calls will disclose that rarely, until the last week or two, were we without from 45 to 55 members present. When you deduct from the aggregate number of 74 delegates the number who are out of the city and sick, or unavoidably de- tained, you have a much larger propor- tion than you have in any general leg- islative or deliberative assembly that meets in the day time. March 1 1201 1907 An inspection of the membership will disclose the fact that they represent every walk and condition and poll of thought in life. The record will also show that in all the discussions and deliberations, but one time, and that for only a moment, was any temper or any anger shown. It will be seen — the rec- ord will show, that men whose occupa- tion demanded their personal attention, gave their time and attention to this Convention at personal loss, in money and in business and in work. I am of the opinion that the City of Chicago has very much to be proud of in the character and work of this Char- ter Convention. I, for one, came into this work without any idea that it would meet all my views or that I could get all my views in. I think it is humanly impossible to meet every- body’s ideas, and, as Mr. Cole has fitly stated on this floor, the constitution of the Charter is composite, and fitted to meet the needs of everybody, of every- body living in the community. That I believe this Charter does. I am thor- oughly appreciative of the courtesy of the members of the Convention to me; I am thoroughly appreciative of the sacrifice it brought. It is much easier to be chairman and be in constant at- tendance than it is to be in the ranks and be in constant attendance. I recognize and appreciate your self- sacrificing work, and I believe the peo- ple of the City of Chicago will; I be- lieve the members of the General As- sembly will; and I believe that when the Charter comes back from the Gen- eral Assembly, wisely, and I hope ten- derly handled, it will be submitted to the people of this city have in its bor- ders men who can construct and frame a Charter not for their own purposes, not for their own use, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of all the people of all the city for all the time. I thank you very much, gentlemen. (Applause.) I desire to say in passing that I want to testify my appreciation and give voice to my thanks for the work of Professor Freund, who is the most un- usual patriot I ever met, who has never been moved to anger except when I suggested that he ought to be recom- pensed for his labors. To Major Edgar Brown Tolman, the Convention is indebted for advice and counsel. I want to commend the attention given by Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. McKinley, and also Mr. Prystalski. Mr. Cham- berlain and Mr. Prystalski have not only worked days but they have worked nights. When you picked up your rec- ords every morning or every afternoon from your desk, it represented the mid- night work of these two men, who have corrected the proofs, who have watched the printing press, and who have sup- plied the brain work and the leg work, and done everything required with the utmost perseverance and patience. (Ap- plause.) Now, gentlemen, if there is no fur- ther business, the Convention stands adjourned subject to the call of the Chairman. And the Convention stood adjourned subject to the call of the Chairman, the people of the City of Chicago, and they will turn to this Convention and say that it has been demonstrated that March 1 1202 1907 RESOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO AMENDMENT OF STATE CONSTITUTION Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Illinois, the Senate concurring there: in That there shall be submitted to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection at the next election of members of the General Assem- bly, a proposition to amend the Constitution of this State as follows: Resolved, That Article IV of the Constitution of this State be amended by ading thereto a section to be numbered and known as Section 34, and reading as follows, to-wit: Section 34. The General Assembly shall have power, subject to the condi- tions and limitations hereinafter contained to pass any law (local, special or general) providing a scheme or charter of local municipal government for thei territory now or hereafter embraced within the limits of the City of Chicago. The law or laws so passed may provide for consolidating (in whole or in part) in the municipal government of the City of Chicago, the powers now vested in the city, board of education, township, park and other local governments and authorities having jurisdiction confined to or within said territory, or any part thereof, and for the assumption by the City of Chicago of the debts and liabilities (in whole or in part) of the governments or corporate authorities whose functions within its territory shall be vested in said City of Chicago and may| authorize said city in the event of its becoming liable for the indebtedness of two or more of the existing municipal corporations lying wholly within said City of Chicago, to become indebted to an amount (including its existing indebtedness and the indebtedness of all municipal corporations lying wholly within the limits of said city, and said city’s proportionate share of the indebtedness of said county and sanitary district which share shall be determined in such manner as the General Assembly shall prescribe) in its aggregate not exceeding five per centum of the full value of the taxable property within its limits as ascertained by the last assessment either for State or municipal purposes previous to the incurring of such indebtedness (but no new bonded indebtedness, other than for refunding purposes, shall be incurred until the proposition therefor shall be consented to by a majority of the legal voters of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special); and may provide for the assessment of property and the levy and collection of taxes within said city for corporate purposes in accordance with the principles of equality and uniformity prescribed by this Constitution; and may abolish all offices, the functions of which shall be otherwise provided for; and may provide for the annexation of territory to or disconnection of territory from said City of Chicago by the consent of a majority of the legal voters (voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special) of the said city and of a majority of the voters of such territory, voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special, and in case the General Assembly shall create municipal courts in the City of Chicago it may abolish the offices of Justices of the Peace, Police Magistrates and Constables in and for the territory within said city and may limit the jursidiction of Justices of the Peace in the territory of said County of Cook outside of said city to that territory, and in such case the jurisdiction and practice of said municipal courts shall be such as the General Assembly shall prescribe; and the March 1 1203 1907 General Assembly may pass all laws which it may deem requisite to effectually provide a complete system of local municipal government in and for the City of Chicago. No law based upon this amendment to the Constitution, affecting the municipal government of the City of Chicago, shall take effect until such law shall be con- sented to by a majority of the legal voters of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special; and no local or special law based upon this amendment affecting specially any part of the City of Chicago shall take effect until consented to by a majority of the legal voters of such part of said city voting on the question at any election, general, municipal or special. Nothing in this section contained shall be construed to repeal, amend or affect Section Four (4) of Article XI of the Constitution of this State. Adopted by the House, April 22, 1903. Concurred in by the Senate, April 22, 1903.